Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 24 May.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 24 May.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 24 May.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 23 May at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Crime Prevention

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further initiatives he proposes to combat crime.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The criminal justice working paper, which I published last week—copies of which are in the Vote Office—sets out my continuing strategy to combat crime and describes a range of current initiatives. Its main themes are the importance of measures to secure public confidence; the search for greater efficiency and effectiveness; and the retention of a proper balance between the rights of the citizen and the needs of the community as a whole.

Mr. MacKay: What further measures are the police taking to counter brutal and illegal intimidation in the coalfields?

Mr. Brittan: There has been a lot of nasty intimidation and the police are determined to do everything they can to deal with it. Miners are now being encouraged to report all such occurrences to the police, with an assurance by the

police that they will be investigated and, wherever possible, charges brought. In many areas, teams of CID officers are being formed to investigate such allegations and to ensure that they are taken seriously. In addition, a uniform presence has been placed in villages which are identified as having high levels of intimidation. Officers are patrolling on foot throughout the day, with increased levels of activity during high risk periods.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that it is little wonder that the police are unable to control drug pedlars and that three small kids could be abducted, with the police unable to find out where they have gone, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government are more concerned to draft 12,000 policemen into the midlands coalfields to bully miners who are fighting for the right to work? As the Home Secretary is prepared to bring new riot charges against miners—imposing a kind of feudal law on them—and is prepared to pay the police £500 a week to tackle—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches at Question Time.

Mr. Nellist: What about the Home Secretary's long reply?

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be taken remotely seriously with questions that are not out of order, I should like to hear him condemn those involved in the mining dispute who have been responsible for threatening the families of innocent people, those who damage property and daub paint, and those involved in violent activity on a massive scale. When he does that, the House might be able to take him seriously.

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is Gaddafi's puppet—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. We have a number of questions today on this dispute, and I ask the House to take them with calmness and seriousness.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take time to pay tribute to men and women from constituencies outside Nottinghamshire who are policing the picket lines and in particular are facing appalling intimidation from some of the barbarians on those picket lines?

Mr. Brittan: I pay tribute to the many policemen from all over the country who on behalf of the community as a whole, are undertaking, a difficult and sometimes dangerous task, which has been made necessary only by the attempt by large numbers of people to prevent their fellow citizens from going about their lawful business.

Mr. Kaufman: What is achieved in the task of effectively combating crime by the forcible palm and finger printing of Mrs. Scargill, by the strip searching of women protesting against nuclear weapons and by two policemen entering a women's lavatory, closing it off, removing a grille from a men's lavatory, spying through


it and then climbing over the lavatory cubicle to seize two men? How are our record levels of burglary and crime combated by such things? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deal with crime instead of invading civil liberties?

Mr. Brittan: I am not in a position to comment on the first and third incidents which the right hon. Gentleman selectively mentioned. If he wishes to make a complaint, he is welcome to do so. As to the alleged strip search of female protesters at RAF Alconbury, I have asked the chief constable of Cambridgeshire for a report about the alleged incident at the police station, but I have not yet received it.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute an inquiry into police activities in the present coal mining dispute.

Mr. Brittan: No, Sir.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Home Secretary accept that I appreciate the difficulties facing the police in the carrying out of their duties? Is he aware that many of us are deeply concerned about some of the actions and some of the conduct of some of the police in the mining dispute? Some of my constituents, many of whom are known to me personally as good, solid, respectable citizens who would not dream of using violence in any circumstances, have been subjected to unwarranted force and abuse. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that there is a widespread fear that there is now a de facto national police force, fostered by this Government for the restriction of personal and political liberties? In those circumstances, will he reconsider his decision not to institute an inquiry?

Mr. Brittan: There is no question of a national police force. A number of people unrelated to the Home Office and representatives of Opposition parties have visited the national reporting centre and seen what is going on there and how it is being used by the police to provide reinforcements at the request of chief constables and in no other way.
I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to pursue in the proper manner allegations of unwarranted force and abuse. I hope that if he feels there is material on which to found a complaint against any member of the police force he will follow the statutory procedure, and the matter will be considered carefully. I know also that the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to exert a responsible influence in these cases, will wish to condemn and deplore incidents of violence and intimidation, and I am sure that he will do so.

Mr. Raffan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his announcement last Friday of financial assistance to those police authorities covering the miners' dispute will still leave the North Wales police authority facing a severe financial crisis? In the first instance it will have to find 50 per cent. of the product of a penny rate — £316,000 — and that will consume not only its entire contingency budget of £200,000, but eat substantially into the main budget. Surely it cannot be right for the people of north Wales to have to pay even in part for the policing of this dispute.

Mr. Brittan: A contribution from the Government in the ordinary way of over 50 per cent. —50 per cent.

through the police grant and any further money from the rate support grant—plus the further payment of 40 per cent. of any additional expenditure over the penny rate, is by any normal standards an extremely generous and reasonable response, which has been welcomed by most people.

Mr. Concannon: In spite of the heavy rhetoric that took place at the beginning of this Question Time on both sides of the House, is the Home Secretary aware that we have good, solid citizens in Nottinghamshire who like their civil rights as well and are fed up with the intimidation, the damage and the threats to their families that are taking place? I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party for condemning that yesterday. I hope that the House and the trade union movement will condemn it as well.

Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the great proportion of the House believe in peaceful picketing, which if carried out would mean that the police would have a small job to do? Will he further accept that if six people talked to one that would be a discussion, but if 600 did so it would be coercion? The job of the police is to stop coercion, and the sooner Mr. Scargill stops 600 people coercing other people, the less work there will be for the police, with no need for an inquiry.

Mr. Brittan: I agree.

Mr. Barron: Is not the request for an inquiry justified in one or two cases? One is the pro forma used in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, which has been heavily criticised in the Police Federation magazine, a copy of which I have, and the broad widening of the conditions of bail during the dispute, which if they were taken to their limit could put people under house arrest. That has restricted people moving about even in Yorkshire. The other case arises from the fact that Chief Inspector Bob Lax, a representative of the South Yorkshire Police Federation, said that he was not sure that his members were carrying out the law in relation to road blocks and felt that the matter should be cleared up by an inquiry.

Mr. Brittan: In any case where it is suggested that the bail conditions that have been imposed are unreasonable, it is always possible for them to be tested in the courts. Bail conditions are imposed by a court and that is the right arena in which they should be investigated. Similarly, if any police officer or individual member of the public has doubts about the legality of any action, as opposed to any other aspect of it, that again is, classically, something which the courts, not the Government, determine.
The pro forma is simply a convenient form to show circumstances which have arisen in many cases which, if the policeman finds that it reflects the facts of a particular case, he may use. If the facts of a particular case about which he wishes to make a statement are different, he will, of course, not follow the pro forma.

Mr. Crouch: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the police and the photography? A constituent of mine who is a prominent official in the National Union of Mineworkers has complained to me about his members having their photographs taken while on picket. I told him that I had often seen his picture on


the television alongside Mr. Scargill and that I did not know what he was worrying about. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the police and their cameras?

Mr. Brittan: Very often it is difficult to identify people who may have done, or are suspected of doing, particular things, and I think that taking a photograph in many circumstances is a reasonable thing to do.

Mr. Alton: Will the Home Secretary consider again the use of the Police Complaints Board as a way of investigating these complaints? Does he not agree that this highlights again the need for an independent police complaints procedure?

Mr. Brittan: I agree that improvements are necessary in the means of looking at complaints against the police. It is for that reason that we have substantially changed the present arrangements in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, by setting up an extremely powerful Police Complaints Authority, which will be able to supervise in as much detail as it wishes the investigation of any complaint against the police. It is exactly because of the understandable concerns expressed not only by the hon. Gentleman but by hon. Members on both sides of the House that we are revising the arrangements in this rather radical way.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend inform the Opposition that they must have more common sense and moderation in this matter? The British police force has acted with great restraint and good sense. To realise that one has only to compare its activities, which are generally supported by the whole country, with those of some of the police forces on the Continent, which adopt a far tougher stance against law breaking.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right. I think that those involved in this matter have to ask themselves whether it is right for them to engage in action to such an extent as to necessitate a police presence on such a scale in order to prevent breaches of the law. I think that those who continue doing that bear a heavy responsibility. I can assure the House that the last thing in the world that anybody wants—whether the police officers concerned, or anybody in Government—is to have to deploy police power for so long and on such a scale, but it is necessary because of the action that is being taken by others to seek to deny people their basic rights.

Mr. Mason: In refusing an inquiry, do I understand that the Home Secretary is absolutely satisfied that everything that the police have done so far—stoppages on the highway, activities against the pickets in Nottinghamshire—has been within the law?

Mr. Britian: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no Minister could possibly say that he was satisfied that everything was absolutely right on all occasions on an operation of this scale. What I am saying is that, if one takes into account the opportunities to challenge in the courts, any alleged illegality, and the opportunities to challenge by the complaints procedure any alleged impropriety, I do not believe that there is anything left that calls for an inquiry.

Mr. Eggar: Further to the point made by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he is extremely concerned about the harassment of miners' families, and

the criminal damage done to miners' cars and to their property? Is my right hon. and learned Friend completely satisfied that there are sufficient police resources to prevent this kind of incident?

Mr. Brittan: I think that my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this aspect. I cannot believe that any decent person in the country, for example, would approve of actions such as stealing paint, daubing it on doors and windows, and pouring the reminder over a litter of kittens so that one of them died. That is simply barbaric. The police are now deploying their forces in the way that I indicated in the answer that I gave to the first supplementary question in order to give effective protection as far as possible against intimidation, because plainly that is a priority that has now been identified.

Mr. Kaufman: Why is the Home Secretary so complacent and one-sided about this matter? Does he not acknowledge that it is in the interests of the police that an inquiry should take place, in view of the allegations that have now been brought by many responsible people, by my right hon. and hon. Friends this afternoon, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason), a former Secretary of State? Allegations have been brought about the creation of no-go areas, the prevention of freedom of movement, intrusive and oppressive photography of people, pro forma documents of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) has mentioned, and the gross misuse of the Riot Act. All these are matters that need inquiring into. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has condemned violence and intimidation. When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be a Home Secretary and show justified concern, instead of being a Tory party hack?

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman should contain his wholly synthetic indignation. He was notably long on rhetoric and short on facts, and might perhaps have acquainted himself with the fact that the Riot Act was repealed in 1967 — just for starters. He should also realise that although he has paid lip-service to the condemnation of violence, I think that that is about as far as it goes. In calling for an inquiry while not specifically dealing with the incidents of intimidation that I have drawn to the attention of the House, he is not exactly doing justice to the office to which he aspires.

Schools (Police Visits)

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department does to encourage police visits to schools.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): All forces already recognise the importance of liaison with schools and devote considerable resources to school visiting.

Mr. Nellist: What about the Warwickshire miners? There are 5,000 there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not shout at me.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that educational visits to schools by the police can do nothing but good in giving the children an appreciation of the difficult job that the police do and of how they can be of


service to both the children and the community? Is he aware that there is sometimes opposition to the police making educational visits, and will he do all that he can to overcome that?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a worry that in a small number of schools, such as those in Hackney, London, the authorities concerned are still refusing, for what appear to be political reasons, to allow police officers to visit them.

Mr. Flannery: If the police go to the schools in any numbers, will the Home Secretary ensure that they are not allowed to group themselves in such a way as to draw their batons and beat up the children?

Mr. Crouch: Oh really.

Mr. Hurd: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, coming from his profession, should take that line. We are talking about police officers visiting schools to give lectures, to play football and so on.

Prisoners

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently in prison.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): On 11 May 1984 there were 44,493 persons held in prison department custody in England and Wales.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree that there is serious overcrowding in the prisons and that there are not enough proper facilities for work and education, which is bad for the morale of both prisoners and prison officers?

Mr. Waddington: As a Government we are tackling that problem by embarking on a prison building programme that will ease it enormously. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the minimum qualifying period for parole will be reduced on 1 July 1984.

Mr. Forth: Although I welcome the Government's prison building programme, will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that the provision of prison places will not act as a limitation on sentencing policy, and that if we find that there is a need to imprison more people for longer in order to deter crime we will provide appropriate prison places for that purpose?

Mr. Waddington: Clearly, it is the Government's duty to enable the courts to impose the sentences which they consider right. Obviously, that is the object of the exercise. That is why we have embarked on the prison building programme, which involves 14 new prisons planned or under construction, and the provision of 10,600 additional places by 1991.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Minister accept that in Britain a higher proportion of the population are in prison than is the case in any other European country? Does he agree that the Government should, therefore, address themselves to the problem of reducing the prison population and, in particular, to dealing with the vast numbers of people remanded in custody who are not subsequently given a prison sentence?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Lady knows that the Criminal Justice Act 1982 enhances the powers of courts to impose non-custodial sentences. We shall shortly

publish a discussion document on the possibility of introducing new sentencing options such as day and weekend imprisonment. That must go some way towards meeting the hon. Lady's argument.

Mr. Dubs: Is not the truth about the prison building programme that the new prisons will be in the wrong places and will be of the wrong type? Does the Minister agree that most overcrowding is in local prisons? Does he seriously believe that the prison building programme will do anything other than encourage the judiciary to fill the extra places?

Mr. Waddington: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is no. I do not believe for one moment that our plans will encourage magistrates and the courts to send to prison people who should not be sent there. It is our clear duty to ensure that the courts have the power to send people to prison when that is necessary.

Civil Defence

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to issue detailed guidance on the new civil defence functions.

Mr. Hurd: We are preparing a consolidated circular bringing together and updating all previous guidance, and adding new. This is a big task. We shall consult local authority associations on a draft in the summer and intend to issue the circular in the autumn.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is a wholly unsatisfactory answer? Are not the Government being exceptionally dilatory on a matter about which there has been grave public concern for a long time? Will my right hon. Friend please tell his civil servants that the contents of the document must be enforced before the House rises for the summer, or he will let down all those who want to do civil defence voluntary work?

Mr. Hurd: The regulations in force are those that were passed by the House in December. The consolidated circular is intended to help local authorities to carry them out. We intend to proceed in an orderly but effective way. Local authorities should have no doubt— I think that they have no doubt—that we have both the will and the power to make the new regulations work.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister realise that many local authorities are sitting on the fence, waiting until the guidelines are issued?

Mr. Hurd: We shall send out a questionnaire to local authorities asking what progress they have made in implementing the regulations which Parliament passed. In the light of that, we shall consider what further action may be needed.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the alarm and concern expressed by emergency planning officers, for whom he has frequently expressed admiration, at the announcement in the House on 4 May that responsibility for emergency planning in the GLC area is likely to be vested in the fire brigade committee when the GLC is devolved?

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought that up, because it gives me the opportunity to say that although the linking which he mentions seems to be a


sensible solution to the problem in London, it certainly does not imply the downgrading of the importance of civil defence.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that many local authorities share my view that civil defence is largely irrelevant over huge areas of need? Is he further aware that that is why the local authorities are resisting the Government's proposals, and, what is more, that that is the view of the general public, who rightly feel resentful because money is being spent on building nuclear shelters to protect a few bureaucrats in areas such as Manchester, which would be totally destroyed in the event of a nuclear war?

Mr. Hurd: If the worst came to the worst, which we think is highly unlikely, effective civil defence could make all the difference to many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effectiveness of civil defence depends very much upon information being available at local level? Is he aware that many emergency committees and county councils are ignorant of how to deal with a range of civil emergencies? Will he therefore disseminate regulations and plans from his Department down to local parish level?

Mr. Hurd: That is certainly our intention.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is not the Minister's failure to issue these guidelines six months after they were promised an admission both of the low priority that the Government accord to civil defence and an acknowledgement that such defence is a waste of time and money when far more serious and pressing problems confront local authorities and their citizens? In any event, how can local authorities plan properly for civil defence against nuclear war when the Government refuse to share with them their assumptions about the nature, scale, likely targets and potential consequences for any local authority area of such an attack?

Mr. Hurd: When we discussed the regulations, the deputy leader of the Labour party said that the Labour party supported civil defence in principle. We are always willing to listen to suggestions, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in his new and exalted position, will do his best to back up his deputy leader's statement, instead of rubbishing a programme that is humanitarian and responsible.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest moment.

Sir Antony Buck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what non-police civil defence grant was paid to county councils in 1982–83; and what estimates he makes of grant payable in 1983–84 and 1984–85.

Mr. Hurd: The total civil defence grant payable to county councils in England and Wales in 1982–83 for non-police expenditure as submitted for audit was £5,127,460. The corresponding figure for 1983–84 based on provisional claims was £7·8 million in round terms. For 1984–85, county councils' preliminary estimates indicate a figure at 1984–85 cash prices of £6·86 million, but this will have to be adjusted as the year proceeds.

Sir Antony Buck: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he satisfied that those sums are being used effectively? Does an analysis of the figures reveal which local authorities are fulfilling their obligations on civil defence?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. and learned Friend is right in his inference. That is one reason why we asked the House: to pass the new regulations and why we are strengthening the division in the Home Office that monitors performance.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has the Minister seen the findings of the international conference in Washington on the effects of a nuclear war on the environment? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the conference's predictions that there will be an environmental disaster of unparalleled magnitude—a climatic disaster? Is it not ludicrous to talk about giving grants to local councils when the world will be destroyed by any nuclear conflict? Is that not nonsense?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows that scientific discussion on that thesis is continuing and is not yet completed. The money which we are allocating and which local authorities are spending on civil defence could, if the deterrent were to break down—I repeat that we believe that that is highly unlikely — make all the difference between life and death to many hundreds of thousands of people.

Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend comment more generally and further on the response by, and reaction of, the county councils to the civil defence measures that were passed by the House last December?

Mr. Hurd: Not yet.. but I hope that we can do so later.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend urgently consider ways of improving the status of and increasing the resources available to civil defence volunteers? That form of public service deserves and should command more widespread support. We are spending on civil defence only one tenth of 1 per cent. of the money that we spend on the major Departments. We should provide better encouragement to our civil defence volunteers.

Mr. Hurd: Volunteers are an essential part of civil defence. I am glad to say that there are now 35,000 of them. It is precisely to give them that encouragement, which my hon. Friend lightly advocates, that we put great emphasis in the new regulations on the need to bring together the training and exercising of volunteers.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister aware that the figure that he cited of £6·86 million in 1984–85 for civil defence amounts to 12p per man, woman and child per year spent on defence, whereas the Ministry of Defence spends £6 per man, woman and child per week on arms? Does that not show how little hope the Minister has of anyone surviving a war?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has not followed either the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) or my answer, which related to a small part of the total of civil defence spending.

Shoplifting

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been acquitted of shoplifting in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): In 1982, the latest year for which figures are available, about 6,200 persons were acquitted of shoplifting charges in England and Wales. About 80,200 persons were found or pleaded guilty in the same year.

Mr. Janner: Given the increase in the number of people who are wrongly charged with this offence, is it not time for the police to undertake all prosecutions? Is the Minister aware that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis told me that he would be prepared for the Metropolitan police to take on the responsibility if he had the necessary resources? Will the Government give him the resources so that London can have the same system as Essex, Leicester and elsewhere, where it is being implemented decently, properly and fairly?

Mr. Mellor: Without casting aspersions on the way in which matters are handled in London, may I say that I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's belief that it would be better if the police were to take on a much larger role in prosecuting these offences. We are discussing the matter with the Commissioner. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we are bringing forward proposals to create an independent prosecution system. I have no doubt that a central part of that in London will be that the police should take over the prosecution of shoplifting offences.

Mr. Adley: As 12 years have passed since the Home Office accepted the validity of the proposition that self-service shopping encourages shoplifting, what is the view of the Home Office of people and organisations which, for their own trading purposes, introduce systems which result in an increase in crime?

Mr. Mellor: I cannot agree that supermarket shopping, which many find convenient, is an invitation to commit crime. I remind my hon. Friend that an essential part of the offence of theft is dishonesty. If someone places a package in the wrong basket merely by accident, that will be a valid defence if it is believed by the magistrates or a jury.

Offenders (Reparation)

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the further assessment of the possibilities for reparation by offenders to their victims.

Mr. Brittan: I have already indicated my intention to encourage and monitor schemes for reparation by offenders to victims. I shall be making a limited amount of money available to help experimental schemes designed to test different approaches and I am considering a number of proposals which have been put to me.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that helpful answer. It is essential that defendants should be made aware of the dreadful harm that they inflict upon their victims. Will he make funds

available for setting up a direct reparation scheme in King's Lynn, where, with the help of a home watch scheme on the Fairstead estate, the police are now winning the local battle against crime?

Mr. Brittan: I do not promise to support a particular scheme. However, if my hon. Friend sends me the details I shall consider it.

Bail

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to amend the Bail Act so that magistrates may not impose unreasonable bail conditions.

Mr. Mellor: No, Sir. The Bail Act 1976 specifies the purposes for which conditions may be attached to the grant of bail. A defendant who considers conditions imposed on him are unreasonable can apply to the High Court to have them varied.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware that during the current miners' dispute the Bail Act is being used to challenge certain fundamental political rights? Does he know, for example, that in some instances miners have been restricted from attending or speaking at meetings that relate to the industrial dispute? With that evidence, which may not have been available to the Minister before—it is clear that certain evidence is not available to the Home Office—does he feel that it would be sensible now to amend the Act, so that people do not regard it as a means of enforcing the Government's industrial policy and a means of defeating the miners in the present dispute?

Mr. Mellor: That is a fanciful suggestion, because the Act was introduced by the previous Labour Government. If the hon. Member had been a member of this place at that time he would no doubt have voted for the enactment of the measure. Magistrates have a duty to attach conditions to bail to try to ensure that further offences are not committed by a defendant while on bail. If a defendant is aggrieved he should go to the courts, where proper redress is available if the circumstances permit it, and not complain to me.

Mr. Holt: Will my hon. Friend note that my constituents would like to see the Act tightened rather than relaxed? One of my constituents was put to death by a man on bail who was already on licence from prison, having committed arson. He subsequently knifed a man because he did not like the way he was looking at him. Finally, he put another man to death because he involved himself in a fight. If he had not been granted bail, the young man would still be alive. We want bail conditions to be tightened, not relaxed.

Mr. Mellor: Whatever Parliament may decree, the granting of bail depends on magistrates' discretion in the circumstances of individual cases. It is to be hoped that magistrates always get these decisions right, but occasionally there are distressing examples of things going wrong. I am not sure whether the amendment of the Act would have prevented the tragedy which my hon. Friend has put before us.

Mr. Barron: Will the Minister tell us why bail conditions given in March by magistrates in Mansfield that applicants should not visit National Coal Board premises other than their place of work have been broadened


considerably five weeks after that? Is it not wrong for the Minister to say that aggrieved applicants may apply to the High Court if the bail conditions are any different, when more than 2,000 people have been arrested and movement is now restricted?

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman seems to be blissfully unaware of one of our fundamental freedoms, which is that Ministers do not adjudicate on the validity of court decisions. I am sorry that that approach to our freedoms is finding little sympathy on the Opposition Benches.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MIMSTER

Engagements

Mr. Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 17 May.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with King Hussein of Jordan.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the brutal Gulf war, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and the vile abomination of chemical warfare poses a major threat to world peace? Should not the major powers insist upon an immediate arms embargo and call the Security Council into force to get one?

The Prime Minister: The Government are seriously concerned about the Iran-Iraq war, the loss of life and the implications for Western security, especially in view of the recent attacks on neutral oil tankers. We are willing to support any initiatives in the United Nations that are likely to achieve peace. Britain does not supply lethal weapons to either side in the Iran-Iraq war, and we have refused to export eight different chemicals which might be fabricated into weapons of chemical warfare.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister, if she has not already done so, read the speech by her right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), in which he denounced the Government's unemployment policies, the demise of the GLC and the latest policy appertaining to the public sector? Bearing in mind that his speech was in accordance with the sentiments of the Opposition, will the right hon. Lady take cognisance of that fact and attempt in some way to change the policies of Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardell: Following the leaking of yet another confidential report — [Interruption.] With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat my question. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wardell: Following the leaking of yet another confidential report, "A Review of Benefit Visiting," will the Prime Minister assure the House that copies of the

report will be made available to right hon. and hon. Members and, in the meantime, will she assure the House that DHSS staff will be retrained so that supplementary benefit claimants will be fully and adequately informed of the benefits that they can claim?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the question is no, Sir. The answer to the second part is that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, if supplementary benefit claimants are dissatisfied with the amount awarded to them, sufficient appeal procedures are available. I shall, of course, bring the other matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Lilley: Has my right hon. Friend had time to consider her policies towards Europe in the light of the manifestos now being prepared and published by the opposition parties? Will she reassure the House that she will continue to steer a middle way between the extremists of the Labour party, who wish to leave Europe, and the equally extreme policy outlined in the alliance manifesto of abandoning or severely restricting the veto and handing over to the European Assembly the right to raise taxes without this House having any say in the matter and the policy outlined by alliance spokesmen of doubling our contribution to own resources?

The Prime Minister: We shall continue our present policies in Europe. We believe that it is to the advantage of Britain to remain in the Community. There is no doubt about that. We also believe that this country needs a strong voice in Europe, and we believe that it has just that.

Mr. Kinnock: It is now seven weeks since 31 March when our £457 million rebate from the Common Mark et was supposed to be paid. When does the Prime Minister expect our money to be paid to us?

The Prime Minister: The date on which we were expecting it was 31 March, but I am afraid that that is not a legally enforceable date. [Interruption.] I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the facts. One does not normally make fun of legal facts. That is not a legally enforceable date, but we hope that the money will be paid by the end of this year.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is right in one respect. The absence of the £457 million that is due to us is not in the least bit funny. Will she tell us whether she thinks that the money is actually due to us—yes or no? In view of her entirely dilatory attitude towards reclaiming it, does she believe that we shall get the money—yes or no? If the money that is due to us is not paid, will she withhold that sum, so that we can spend it on necessary objectives in Britain—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: Under the terms of the Stuttgart communiqué, 850 million ecu were reserved from this year's budget to be paid to Britain. The normal practice has been to pay it by 31 March. That is a matter of practice. It is still in the reserve European budget.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that the fact that this year is an exception is due entirely to her abrasiveness and utter incompetence in defending the interests of this country?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Without a strong voice we should never have got the promise of payment. I


believe that that promise will be honoured. The Opposition were not much good at getting rebates of any kind at any time.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is it not extraordinary that, having, against intense competition, obtained a contract to export 175,000 tonnes of coal to the United States, the National Coal Board now has to buy that coal on the open market because it cannot be produced in this country? Does that not throw doubt on the credibility of those in the NUM leadership who say that they have the interests of the coal industry at heart?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The National Coal Board obtained a valuable contract to export coke to the United States. An essential part of the contract was that the first shipment should leave this country by the end of May. If it cannot be produced in Britain at present, it clearly makes sense to keep the next tranche of sales within possibility for this country by purchasing the coal and exporting it from here. The NCB is trying to retain the possibility of those sales for this country. That is a very advisable policy, although it would be far better if all the coal could be produced here and sold from this country.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her official duties today to convey to the other European Heads of Government that it is a gross discrimination against the United Kingdom to impose quotas for excess milk production, without also imposing quotas for the excess production of wine and olive oil?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that one of the biggest items of the Community budget and of the common agricultural policy arose from the excess production of milk. It is right to tackle that matter first.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dubs: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to consider the recently published report of the New Ireland Forum? Despite her commitment that the people of Northern Ireland will not become part of a united Ireland without their consent, does she agree that this veto should not apply to other political changes in Northern Ireland, including the development of closer ties with the Republic?

Prime Minister: We try to work with the Republic of Ireland, because we believe that it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland to do so. The constitutional future of Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland and this Parliament, and for no one else.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since the matter was raised with her exactly a week ago violence and thuggery have continued unabated in the miners' strike? Is she further aware that all decent people are disgusted by this behaviour? Is it not time that any sort of illegal picketing was unequivocally condemned by all sections of the House?

Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. That is correct. The right to picket is a right to picket peacefully to persuade people who are going to work not to work. Most people will agree that that is not what we are seeing. The criminal law on picketing has not changed. The law on crime relating to

violence and intimidation has not changed. Most people —and this goes for the majority of miners, too—are grateful to the police and congratulate them on the excellent way in which they are carrying out their duties.

Dr. Owen: Is it not a shameful abandonment of principle, after everything that was said during the general election—[Interruption.]—for the Prime Minister and her Government—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Owen: Is it not a shameful abandonment of principle—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has an absolute right to be heard.

Dr. Owen: Is it not a shameful abandonment of principle that the right hon. Lady has changed the commitment that she made during the general election to the defence of this country and in two years' time will abandon the 3 per cent. increase in growth in the defence budget, will cut it to 0·5 per cent., will rely totally on nuclear weapons, and will not be able to make a contribution to the strengthening of European defence in a conventional war? Will she reconsider her decision on Trident?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. At no time did we make a full commitment to the 3 per cent. increase for the years following 1985–86. The right hon. Gentleman is fully aware that during our first years we fulfilled the NATO commitment of 3 per cent. and we shall continue to do so until 1985–86.
With regard to Trident, we need an independent nuclear deterrent. The Polaris submarines and missiles will have to be replaced in the early 1990s. Trident takes only 3 per cent. of the defence budget and gives us a considerable amount of deterrence, which we could not get by spending the same amount on extra conventional weapons.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: With regard to nurses' pay, does the Prime Minister think that a nurse's work is as valuable to the community as that of a policeman?

Prime Minister: Most people's work is valuable to the community. Under this Government, nurses' pay has increased by 80 per cent., compared with only a 60 per cent. increase in the retail price index.

Mr. Leigh: Given that the so-called peace movement declined rapidly once we deployed cruise missiles, will my right hon. Friend take time today to convey to the Dutch people and Parliament the vital importance of that country meeting its obligation to install 48 cruise missiles, because if it fails to do so Belgium might waiver, the Alliance upon which all our freedoms depend might be damaged and the sinister forces that threaten those freedoms might be given new heart?

The Prime Minister: If not today, we have brought, and will continue to bring, to the attention of the Dutch people and their Government the importance of their honouring their commitment on cruise missiles, for the reasons which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Beggs: Has the Prime Minister protested to the Government of the Irish Republic at the most recent murder of a Protestant farmer and member of the UDR? If not, will she undertake to do so and seek the cooperation of the Government of the Irish Republic to have those responsible apprehended and extradited to Northern Ireland to stand trial for this terrible crime?

The Prime Minister: We have had great co-operation from the Irish Republic in apprehending criminals and in attempting to bring them to trial, and I have no complaints against the Irish Republic on that score.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 MAY — Until seven o'clock, private Members' motions. Afterwards, Third Reading of the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.
Motion relating to the Social Security (Adjudications) Regulations.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill.
TUESDAY 22 MAY—Completion of consideration in Committee on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 23 MAY—Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the Government's decision to bring American cruise missiles to the United Kingdom.
Motion on EEC documents on fisheries. The relevant numbers will appear in the Official Report.
Second Reading of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 24 MAY—Completion of remaining stages of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill.
FRIDAY 25 MAY—It is being proposed that the House should rise for the spring Adjournment until Monday 4 June.

Fisheries Debate on 23 May

Documents:

a. Total Allowable Catches for 1984—Document No. 11209/83 and Document No. 11209/83 Amendment 1
b. North Sea Herring: Norway — Document No. 4969/84
c. Total Allowable Catches for 1984: Amendment—Document No. 5390/84
d. North Sea Herring: interim—
e. Fishery Conservation, technical measures—

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

a. HC 78-xii (1983–84) para. 4
b. HC 78-xvi (1983–84) para. 4
c. HC 78-xx (1983–84) para. 5
d. HC 78-xii (1983–84) para. 5
e. HC 78-xxvi (1983–84) para. 1

Mr. Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for responding to my request of last week and providing some Opposition time next week. In view of the proposed abolition of the GLC and metropolitan county councils, will he ensure that Government time is made available for a debate on the consequences for the arts of that destructive series of proposals since the matter is causing deep anxiety among consumers and providers of the performing arts?
The Leader of the House will, I am sure, agree that there should be a debate on the White Paper on the European Community well before the European elections on 14 June, and I wonder whether he will give me an undertaking about such a debate. Further, will it be possible for the House to adjourn for at least one day on the day of the European elections?
Finally, will it be possible to debate the report of the New Ireland Forum? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Government should provide time for the House to discuss this initiative and the opportunities that it might offer. I have raised this matter previously, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can go a little further today than he did before.

Mr. Biffen: I agree at once that next week's business is well balanced in that on Wednesday there will be a debate on a subject chosen by the Opposition. I accept that there is great interest in the arts and, more generally, in our heritage, and I hope that it will be possible to arrange a debate upon that subject in the near future.
As to the point about the House having the chance to debate the European Community White Paper before 14 June, again I acknowledge the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, which I think would be echoed in many parts of the House. Perhaps this is something we could consider through the usual channels.
I note the suggestion that we might adjourn for the day on 14 June. I must confess that at the moment I have no plan to interrupt the smooth and productive flow of the work of Parliament during the week beginning 11 June, and I think that it must remain my settled view.
Finally, I do not in any sense diminish my respect for the view that there should be a debate on the New Ireland Forum, but the timing of it is a matter for consideration and I cannot go any further this week than I could last week. However, I have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: While the report of the New Ireland Forum might well be referred to in a future debate on Northern Ireland which many of us want, would it not be more relevant to the business of the United Kingdom to have an early debate on the document of the Ulster Unionist Assembly party, "The Way Forward", which indeed reveals the way forward for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Biffen: That point was put to me two or three weeks ago. I then replied that I thought generously in terms of that document, and I remain of that view.

Dr. David Owen: Is it not extraordinary that once again we should be going on holiday without having had a debate on the miners' dispute? In view of the fact that the Opposition, who control totally the opportunities for debate, have not seen fit to allow a debate, will the Leader of the House give a promise to those of us, on both sides of the House I think, who feel that there should be a debate that he will initiate a debate in Government time immediately after the holiday if the Leader of the Opposition has not plucked up enough courage to have a debate?

Mr. Biffen: No provision has been made for a debate in Government time on the current industrial dispute in the coal industry. I cannot guarantee that such a debate will be forthcoming in Government time immediately after we return. This is always a matter that is kept under consideration, both in respect of debate and statements. That is how the matter must continue.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the allocation of Opposition days. All I can say is that I am bound by Standing Order No. 6, which is relevant in these


matters, and that both the Liberal party and the Ulster Unionists have had advantage of the conventions that flow from that.

Sir Dudley Smith: Has my right hon. Friend had time to notice that an official rugby team has now arrived in South Africa to play against South Africa, a gesture which I warmly welcome? Is he aware that the Soviet Union and her eastern European satellites have decided to boycott the meretricious Olympic games? In these circumstances, would it not be useful, if not next week certainly in the near future, to have a debate about the relevance of international sport?

Mr. Biffen: No.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we will have the report stage of the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Bill? Will he try to make it the earliest possible date?

Mr. Biffen: Yes. I cannot promise when it will take place, but I take account of the point represented to me by the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: I was rather puzzled that the Leader of the Opposition did not propose that there should be a debate on the coal mining dispute? Will my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition consider having such a debate on 14 June when the Euro elections are taking place?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. I do not think he is expecting an answer.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 81 on the subject of acid rain?
[That this House notes with great concern recent studies: (a) by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology which shows that rainfall in Scotland is commonly 30 times the normal acidic level and in some cases much more than this and (b) by the United Kingdom Review Group on Acid Rain which, in its preliminary Report identified the areas in the United Kingdom which receive the largest inputs of acidity as the West Central Highlands of Scotland, the Southern Uplands of Scotland and parts of Cumbria and which pointed out that in these areas the amount of acid deposited was of the same order as in regions of Scandinavia; further notes that tens of thousands of Scandinavian inland water masses are now 'dead' because of acid rain and that one million hectares of forest in Central Europe are badly affected by acid deposition; observes with disbelief that, in the face of this evidence, the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America were satisfied that the recent Stockholm conference on the Acidification of the Environment ended without adopting specific goals for the reduction of sulphur emissions; is fully aware that, with thin top soils and extensive forestry, most of Scotland is in grave danger of becoming the next casualty of acid rain disaster; and calls on her Majesty's Government to take the most urgent steps to reduce the emission of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides into the atmosphere by: (i) energy conservation measures and (ii) the use of already available technology to control and clean emission and to give increased research funding for the continued study and monitoring of the acid rain problem.]
In view of the interest in this subject and recent research on it, will he be prepared to consider having a debate after the recess on the pollution of the atmosphere?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot hold out great hopes for such a debate in Government time. I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman tries his chance for one of the spring Adjournment debates on Friday 25 May.

Mr. Michael Latham: Following the answer given to me earlier by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster, and in view of the grave incident in the Gulf war yesterday, can my right hon. Friend confirm that if there are any developments to report next week to the House about initiatives taken by the Government in the Security Council my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement to the House?

Mr. Biffen: I am most happy to give that assurance.

Mr. Jack Ashley: While everyone is rightly focusing on the miners' dispute, is the Leader of the House aware that a most important report about mining districts — the Waddilove report on subsidence damage—is being pubished today? As that affects many families in areas where there is mining damage, will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate that important subject in the near future?

Mr. Biffen: I readily accept that the report covers an important subject. However as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is being published only today. We need time to consider and reflect on it. We must wait for that process to be completed before commenting further on the likelihood of a debate.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend has now been asked many times about the procedure necessary before any extra payment can be made to the EC. What authority is required from the House if an extra loan is made to the EC by the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I imagine that in the first instance the matter would be embodied in a Community document, which would go before the Scrutiny Committee, which would then make recommendations.

Mr. Stuart Bell: As there is to be an important economic summit in London on 8 and 9 June, dealing with interest rates and the proposed lifeboat for Third world debt, can the Leader of the House offer an early date for a debate on the consequences of the summit?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot do that. Judging by what has happened at most such summits, I am not sure that it would be worthy of a debate.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 752.
[That this House deplores the instruction to Mr. Colin Kempster of Perivale and other ASLEF members by that union's executive that they pay 50 pence per week for four weeks towards the miners' strike in default of which they will automatically lose all union rights and entitlements; deplores the total lack of consultation with ASLEF members over this decision; and notes that British Rail employees who are ASLEF members could lose their jobs if they elect to ignore this instruction thereby refusing to submit to political blackmail.]


It refers to the case of my constituent Mr. Colin Kempster of Perivale, an ASLEF member and a relief train driver. What he regards as a fine has been imposed on him for the past four weeks. Without any say in the matter, he has been obliged to make a contribution to the miners' strike. He is refusing to do that as he regards the strike as undemocratic. He also feels that being ordered by a small group of men to pay the levy is equally undemocratic.
As my constituent could lose his job, and as he will also lose the legal representation guaranteed by his union—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rehearse the speech that he might make if a debate were granted.

Mr. Greenway: In view of the threat to the livelihood and job of my constituent, will my right hon. Friend allow time for an early debate on the matter, which comes well within the context of the miners' dispute?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a constituency point that has a much wider significance. I congratulate him on the use he has made of parliamentary opportunities to inform us of the main characteristics of the matter, ahead of any success that he may have in the ballot for Adjournment debates.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Despite the hint from the Leader of the House during business questions last week, there have been no statements about the position at Ravenscraig. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) for a debate on the mining dispute and the position at Ravenscraig? Despite assurances, is not the position at Ravenscraig still in doubt? By the time that we return from the recess, it may be too late to discuss the matter.

Mr. Biffen: I promise to continue the promise that I made last week.

Mr. John Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend noted the large increase in the number of visitors to the Palace of Westminster this year? Does he realise that taking a party around the Palace—which I am sure, with his sense of history, he has often enjoyed doing—is now becoming a burden? Will he consider reducing the numbers by, for example, not allowing young children to come to the Palace? Will he do something to ensure that when people come to the Palace they do not chew gum and leave it lying around afterwards?

Mr. Biffen: Taking parties around the Palace of Westminster is a pleasure which, for some reason or other, has always eluded me. I am certain that my hon. Friend is right to say that increasing use is being made of the facilities to take round parties and this is giving rise to some difficulties. I shall look into the matter.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Prime Minister said on Tuesday that she would possibly be making a decision on the nurses' pay claim after the recess? In view of the fact that by that time it will be three months overdue, may I ask him, in drawing up his programme for the following fortnight, to ensure that at least this House has the opportunity of doing justice to the nurses?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that point to the attention of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Crouch: The miners' strike has been front page news for 10 weeks. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind when recalling the remark of a great former parliamentarian that this House is the sounding board of the nation? Does he not think that it should be so in this instance?

Mr. Biffen: I pay proper regard to the point that my hon. Friend makes. In the consideration of this dispute, either in terms of debates or statements, the most serious attention will, of course, be given by the Government to the point at which it is appropriate to consult the House.

Dr. Owen: Disgraceful.

Mr. Biffen: It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to shout "Disgraceful," but he should not try to rubbish me as though I were a member of the Liberal party.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at Question Time last Thursday the Prime Minister failed to respond to an allegation that one of the seven guns found after the siege at the Libyan people's bureau had been used to murder a Libyan in this country some time ago? Is he aware that within minutes of Question Time Home Office officials were privately confirming the allegation as being true? In those circumstances, has any further consideration been given by the Government to establishing a full independent inquiry into the activities of Libyan diplomats in Britain in recent years, the events which led up to the siege and the activities of other diplomats in London?

Mr. Biffen: No, but I shall draw to the attention of the Home Secretary the allegation concerning his officials.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the GLC has apparently changed its mind over £300,000 originally earmarked for expenditure on concessionary fares to the elderly and now plans to spend it on political propaganda attacking the London Regional Transport Bill? In view of this disgraceful situation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider providing Government time to expedite the excellent Bill introduced into the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold)?

Mr. Biffen: Without in any sense disparaging that admirable Bill or the points just made by my hon. Friend, it would be a dubious precedent if the Government were now to provide facilities for private legislation.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House got round to reading the latest biography of his leader by Bruce Arnold? What action do the Government intend to take, perhaps in a statement next week, about the comment on page 72 that "Margaret Thatcher told" an unparliamentary word? As Hamish Hamilton Ltd. has expert libel lawyers and is a reputable London publishing house, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree that we should have a statement making it clear, one way or the other, whether she did tell an unparliamentary word, as stated on page 72, in relation to the Belgrano?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that I am not contravening the fourth amendment or doing myself undue harm when I say that I have never read a biography of my leader.
[Interruption.] I have just found it more congenial to proceed that way. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's request to the appropriate quarters.

Mr. Eric Forth: In view of the critical importance to both the United Kingdom and the EEC of the negotiations to enlarge the Community, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the House will have an early opportunity to guide the Government in their attitude in these negotiations, and that at the very least the massively enlarged treaty will be brought before the House before it is ratified by the Government?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that I can confirm my hon. Friend's latter request. As to his request for a debate that would enable the House to take a view on the prospects of enlargement, I should have thought that if we were able to have the debate asked for by the Leader of the Opposition its terms would be such that we could cover the subject.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that the Select Committee on Members' Interests is examining the question of lobbying, may we have a debate in Government time on the last two reports of that Committee?

Mr. Biffen: I must confess that no provision has been made for that next week, and I cannot think that there will be much time available in the crowded and busy programme that there is between the time when Parliament resumes and the summer recess. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman may wish to give us a prelude of this debate on the subject by himself seeking to initiate one through the Adjournment process.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the revelations about the foreknowledge of UNITA's activities in Angola and the subsequent taking of British hostages, is it not incumbent on the Government to make another statement on this matter?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot speculate on the newspaper article that I think has inspired the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary the point that he makes.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Now that we are in the third month of the miners' strike and over 2,500 miners have been arrested, will the Leader of the House authorise a debate in Government time to justify MacGregor attempting to get rid of 100,000 jobs and the Warwickshire police spending £100,000 a day, which is more than enough to safeguard jobs and give decent wages to miners in Warwickshire? Why do not the Government provide parliamentary time to justify their actions?

Mr. Biffen: The Government view these matters with a proper sense of balance. As I have already said, there is no provision in Government time for such a debate next week, but I must point out that the Government are not the sole providers of time on this topic, and if the position were as scandalous as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting there would be a queue to use every other facility.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) initiated an important Adjournment debate the other night on the disastrous impact of the milk quotas on the agriculture industry. I draw the attention of

the Leader of the House to the fact that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave an undertaking to ensure that there was a debate on this important matter. He said:
we shall come back to the subject—at a more reasonable hour".—[Official Report, 15 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 337.] When might that be?

Mr. Biffen: Strictures on the milk quota arrangements come ill from a party that is committed to diminishing the use of the national veto in the European Community.

Mr. Ashdown: I asked about a debate.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, I know, but I wanted to make that point.
I am sure that what my hon. Friend had in mind about a debate was the statutory instruments that would proceed from section 2 of the European Communities Act which will give authority to the arrangements for the milk quotas, and they will come before the House in the fairly near future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Leader of the House is insisting that there will not be a debate on the coal miners, will he guarantee that when I put down today a motion calling for a debate on the mining industry he will reconsider that decision, as the motion will have the names of a number of Labour Members of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman still insists that he cannot find time, will he make sure that the Minister for Social Security is brought to the Dispatch Box to explain why he has brought out the new guidelines when the miners are on strike with the result that kids in miners' families are starving while the Government can find £500 a week to pay a policeman and can spend £1·5 million of taxpayers' money to allow the Prime Minister to go gallivanting round the world since she took the job and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with next week's business.

Mr. Skinner: The Government should show some compassion to those miners' families instead of being vindictive and vicious as they have been in bringing out the new Department of Health and Social Security rules and regulations.

Mr. Biffen: The persuasive powers of the hon. Gentleman having been unsuccessful with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour party, he now hopes to do rather better with 'me. I have bad news for him. I am just as defective as his leader. The Government will give constant consideration to when it may be appropriate to have a debate on the matter. However, Government time is not the sole available avenue for those who wish to have these matters debated, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. He must not take out on me the anger that he entertains towards his own Front. Bench.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Leader of the House be clear that he has not misled the House and that there will be an opportunity to debate the details of the dairy regulations which may well be directly applicable? Will he assure the House that we shall have that opportunity, whatever happens?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly consider the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. I do not wish to mislead the House into thinking that there would be a debate on the quota system if there were not an opportunity for one. I


am fairly confident on the matter, but I shall consider it. If I have unintentionally misled the House I shall come back and say so.

Spring Adjournment (Debate)

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Friday 25 May up to eight Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning and the result will be made known as soon as possible thereafter.

North London Polytechnic

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing an urgent matter of great public concern, namely,
the presence this morning at the Polytechnic of North London of over 200 policemen, 17 of them equipped with riot shields, in order to force entry into that building to allow one member of the National Front to assume studies in that particular college.
I must remind the House — because Conservative Members are obviously not prepared to consider this serious matter—that the college was closed today on the orders of the governors yesterday. It was only later this morning that a further court order was obtained to attempt to open the college. Two hundred police surrounded the college and tried to force their way in to enable one member of the National Front to get into a college. That college was closed by a student who, while he was supposed to have been a student there for two years, has barely attended the college and has not yet even taken out a library card. Yet he asked if he could be taken to the library when he got in.
These matters are serious. The presence of the police this morning was intimidating to the local community. It was seen as a method of supporting the propaganda war of the National Front against many students of all races who study peacefully in that college, who have shown their abhorrence of the National Front and its racist attitudes.
During this morning's incidents outside the college where the police had a command post, a number of riot vehicles and policemen with riot equipment, they refused admission to the college to myself, the regional organiser for the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, Mr. David Triesman, and the chairman of the NATFHE branch, who is also a governor of the college, Miss Pat East. We were refused admission to the grounds of the college to observe what the police were doing and we were refused admission to the building when the police had entered it. It appeared to me the police had taken control of it.
In fact, the local community and the student and teaching unions were opposed to the presence in the college of that member of the National Front. They all asked the ILEA and the college governors to do what they could to prevent him from coming in and arrangements were made to offer the student individual tuition away from other students. The majority of students said that it was offensive to have a member of the National Front in their classes. The student concerned, and the court, chose to reject this sensible course, and chose to go down the path of confrontation, which is designed to be a propaganda exercise for the National Front.
I believe that the decisions taken, the presence of the police, the methods used by the police, and the methods being used by the National Front are matters of grave national concern. They are serious and important matters, and I believe that the House ought to debate them. It cannot be right that one person who represents Nazi views, who represents racist views, and who represents views that are anathema to the entire community, in a design to divide that community on racist lines, should be allowed to call on large numbers of police to enable him to enter the college. The people outside the college this morning


told me that they found it surprising that so many police could be made available for this incident when unfortunately there are daily incidents of racial harassment in other parts of London, particularly the east end, in which there is only minimal support for people who suffer from racist attacks.
I believe that this is a serious matter, and I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree that the House should adjourn so that the matter can be fully debated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
police presence and activities at the Polytechnic of North London this morning.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 4

SPECIAL CONSTABLES

'Schedule (Special constables) contains provisions about special constables. '.—[Mr. Pattie.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12 and 14.

Mr. Pattie: I recognise that on the face of it the new clause has not a great deal in it to debate as it merely introduces the new schedule which we propose to include at a later point in the Bill. However, I trust that we will not stray from the rules of debate by talking in general terms about the policy to which the new clause and the new schedule give legislative effect.
At the final meeting of Standing Committee D on 1 May, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said that we had been re-examining the question of the physical security of the royal ordnance factories after incorporation. The Committee conducted a serious debate on the subject, and rightly so, because we are dealing with a serious subject.
I am also aware of the concern expressed by the Select Committee on Defence, and of the representations made by the trade unions representing members in the ROFs. I recognise that this was a legitimate concern, and the Ministry of Defence has taken it into account during its reexamination of the future security arrangements proposed for the ROFs.
I received a delegation from the trade unions which made representations on this matter some time ago, and I am aware that a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Defence has been examining the security question of the ROFs in conjunction with security issues at other MOD establishments.
We have reached the conclusion that the company should recruit and train suitable personnel to form its own guard force. The company guard force must be brought into the position of an operating force on which the company and the Government can rely with confidence. This guard force would eventually take over the reponsibilities of the MOD police when we are satisfied that it is able to provide, in conjunction with other measures of physical security, an effective protection for important and sensitive ROF sites.
The consequence of the review which we have now completed is that it would be sensible to provide MOD police guards for the premises of the new ROF company for so long at each factory as the situation requires. This in turn requires legislative cover to provide for the MOD police to retain their existing powers and responsibilities in respect of ROF property. The new clause and its accompanying schedule have been tabled for this purpose.
The new clause merely introduces the new schedule which contains the provisions extending MOD police


powers. The new schedule is essentially in two parts. Paragraph 1 extends the application of the Special Constables Act 1923 to ROF sites after they have ceased to be Crown property. The Special Constables Act is the primary piece of legislation which allows the appointment of a police force by the Defence Council with the powers of the metropolitan police to protect property in the possession, or under the control, of the Defence Council. ROF premises are defined in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1. The definition includes premises which have been transferred from the Ministry of Defence by a scheme under the Bill, as long as those premises are used by the ROF company for making or developing ordnance.
Paragraph 2 of the new schedule defines the property over which MOD police have responsibility. It covers the sorts of movable property which may be stolen from an ROF, and which, therefore, the MOD police need to be empowered to recover. This power is granted by deeming the property as Crown property for this purpose alone, but the property will include anything acquired by the company after incorporation, because, of course, ROF plc will continue to be making ordnance.
Paragraph 3 of the new schedule applies the provisions of another Act which relates to the powers of MOD police. MOD police—who are, for the purposes of the whole schedule and the previous Acts relating to them, special constables—are authorised under the Public Stores Act 1875 to stop, search and detain any vessel, boat or vehicle which they suspect of containing stolen Crown property. This paragraph extends that provision to the property of ROF plc.
Finally, paragraph 4 of the new schedule has been included to avoid the need, which could arise, to re-swear MOD policemen in their new duties. This is to cover a possibility, not a certainty, which could arise because we are granting powers to the MOD police to guard sites which are not within the definition of Crown property, and this might be seen as a new duty requiring special constables to be especially sworn in for the purpose of guarding those premises.
The provisions I have outlined may look fairly complicated, but the new schedule has to deal with several previous enactments, and to define very carefully the extended limits within which the MOD police can operate lawfully. In essence, these provisions allow the MOD police to guard all the existing sites which are being transferred for as long as we consider necessary. The threat of theft or terrorist attack at particular factories will, of course, vary considerably between the ROF sites. As hon. Members have recognised, small arms, for example, are a more attractive target for certain criminal acts than heavy armoured vehicles or tanks. We shall, therefore, be keeping the appropriate security arrangements under continuous review, as the company guard force develops and takes over at certain sites, and also into the longer term. The schedule as drafted gives us the flexibility to retain MOD police at any particular site for as long as we consider necessary, even indefinitely, should that prove to be the only viable alternative. But I must emphasise that our aim is eventually to withdraw MOD police once we are assured that a company guard force can take on security responsibilities efficiently and effectively, raking into account physical restraints on theft and trespass.
It follows from what I have said about the company guard force and the MOD police that we shall not be proceeding with contracts for any private security firms.
In the light of the amendment and of what I have said today, I hope that the Opposition will feel that we should write these provisions into the Bill. I trust that they are also reassured that the Government take matters of security most seriously, and have been prepared to review their policy in the light of representations received and of our own perception of the developing circumstances. I commend the clause and its accompanying schedule to the House.

Mr. Kevin MacNamara: There will be joy among the angels in heaven about one sinner doing penance. When all the Ministers of the Ministry of Defence are doing the same thing in the House, the angels must be intoxicated with joy.
This is a significant change of mind, and offers at least a glimmer of recognition of the Government's ideology of privatisation for privatisation's sake. If it were pursued to the conclusion that they were seeking to pursue it with the Ministry of Defence police, we would have been considering privatising the Brigade of Guards, and, possibly, the SAS. The Government have had a major change of mind because their proposals were heavily criticised by the Select Committee on Defence and by the Standing Committee.
The House should recall the stupidity of the Government's position. They announced their intention to put the security of some of our most sensitive defence establishments out to tender with firms whose employees had the minimum of security training. It has been pointed out that in some cases the principals of those security firms have had criminal records or careers. The Government were going to say that if they could not find one security firm to cover all the ROFs they would put contracts out to tender, bit by bit. Just to show how rigorously and seriously they had considered the matter, the Government were going to demand that those firms met the criteria of the British Security Industries Association.
In Committee, we found that those criteria included an explanation of the training programme and company rules, particularly in relation to dishonesty. That was pretty good. A security firm was to take the matter so seriously that it was to talk to its trainees about dishonesty. Some of the trainees were to have a minimum of two days' training, at least one of which was to be allotted before they went on the job. That was nonsense and was seen to be so by both the House and the Committee. It was ideology gone mad.
After pressure from the unions and the Select Committee, the Government were forced to change their minds. But there are still some strange questions hanging over the issue. The way in which the schedule is drawn up is interesting. Under it, is it possible for the Ministry of Defence to take over responsibility for factories from the new guard force at any time? We still need to know some positive things about the new guard force—if it ever comes into existence. However, despite the Minister's fine words, I do not think that that guard force will materialise. Other reasons apart, it will not do so because in 1980 a committee set up within the Department considered security within the various establishments. When discussing private protection staff, it concluded:
We therefore find no merit in this option, even as a solution to a part of the problem.


The Government's own working party came down against altering the role of the Ministry of Defence police in relation to ROFs.
The Bill has largely been amended because common sense has eventually triumphed. However, if we assume that the Minister's fine words come to fruition and that the factory guard system goes ahead we need some answers to our questions. How will the people be trained? In a letter that the Minister kindly sent me and other members of the Committee, he said:
I should make clear that it has never been the intention to license security guards, whether engaged by contract or recruited as a company guard force, to bear firearms for security duties.
I am grateful to the Minister for having sent that letter, although it was sent rather belatedly on 15 May, and we had been asking him about the Government's intentions almost from Second Reading. However, the Government now say—although whether it was their intention before is another matter—that they will not allow the company guard force to bear firearms for security duty. Nevertheless, further down the page the Minister wrote:
As you will know, the MOD Police do have access to firearms in certain circumstances, and authority to use them to protect Crown property, although they do not carry firearms as a matter of course.
What would the position be if the new guard force took over from Ministry of Defence police in those circumstances? Are the outside district police to be called in? What would the command structure and relationship be between the two, if necessary? Alternatively, would an institution's sensitivity determine whether the guard force was used? If a non-sensitive institution was protected by the guard force, what would be the relationship between the guard force and the Ministry of Defence police? Who would have control and who would be the final arbiter? What would the relationship be between the Ministry of Defence police who are being retained and the new directors for security for all the factories and their divisions, which were announced in Committee?
In what circumstances would the guard force be armed? In the letter, we were told that it would not be armed, but at some point it must take over responsibility from the Ministry of Defence police and the latter have recourse to arms. We do not know what will happen and we need answers to those questions.
Eight companies were asked to tender. Will any compensation be given to those that have tendered? Obviously, I am against the idea of outside security firms, but if those firms have gone to considerable expense and were invited to tender we must know whether they will get any brass out of it, given that the situation has suddenly changed.
We welcome the new clause and schedule, but some questions still need to be answered. The provisions demonstrate a welcome change of mind. There would, of course, have been no need for them if the Government had not been pursuing their foolish policy of de-nationalising the ROFs despite the weight of argument against them, just because they had the weight of votes on their side. Nevertheless, we welcome this important change and we believe that it is vital, in the national interest, that the Ministry of Defence police should stay in the ROFs for as long as possible. Although the Minister piously says that he is looking for an in-service company, we hope that he will not find any such company operating.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I recall saying on Second Reading and in Committee that the Government cannot win in such a situation. If they present the House or the Committee with a hard and fast detailed policy as to what they want to do, the Opposition and others accuse them of being too stubborn and of not being prepared to listen to the representations made by those who have an expert or other interest in what is being discussed. Yet if in the latter stages of the Bill's progress they say that after considering the matter in depth and listening to the concerns and representations made they are prepared to change their mind, they are also subject to criticism. The Opposition are crowing too much. It is rather a case of "damn it, they've shot my fox," as a former Member of Parliament is reported to have said in this Chamber.
I welcome the change and was party to the representations made about it. When my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement spoke about this issue in Committee, I told him that I was delighted with the change, and I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister has introduced this new clause. It is good news, and many people will recognise it as such. However, I should like to ask a few questions just to satisfy myself.
In Committee, I raised a technical question under the Firearms Act 1968 to which I have not as yet received a detailed reply. On the whole, I understand that, because Ministers have been thinking about the changes that have now resulted in the new clause, I explained that under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968 a police constable in the execution of his duty, by virtue of
lawful authority or reasonable excuse",
may use a firearm if he believes that there will be or has been an act that necessitates him doing so. Will members of the proposed guard service be subject to that section? Will they be police constables, and what will be their position if faced with the problem that I have mentioned?
What will happen to the Ministry of Defence police? How long will they operate concurrently with the guard service? Will they be allowed to join that service? What will happen in relation to housing and other matters if they choose not to join?
In broad terms, I am delighted that the Government have recognised the strength of feeling about private security firms. I am glad that on this occasion, as on others, they have listened to the views expressed. I shall certainly be pleased to support the new clause.

Mr. Bruce George: I was delighted that after 23 abortive sittings of the Bill, during which our influence was zero, bingo, the Government appeared to make a concession. I am not convinced that the concession is as great as it appears to be. Despite the Minister's words in Committee and today, I need convincing that what they have conceded is significantly different from their original inane proposal.
What the Government proposed to inflict upon the ordnance factories is beyond belief. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I know how near the Government were to awarding contracts. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) may say that the Government made a small mistake and have now put it right. A Department capable of making such a stupid decision cannot be relied upon a few weeks later after it


has seen the light. The Government were going to give the contract for guarding the ordnance factories to a private contractor.
Some may say that I am a critic of the private security industry. I have the greatest respect for the majority of men and women who work for contract security firms. In many ways the risks that they take are greater and graver than those taken by the police. The death rate among security guards is much higher than it is among policemen. I do not make a blanket condemnation of contract security industry personnel, but I do criticise the system within which they operate. They work in a viciously competitive market, where high standards are costly. It is expensive to provide a good training scheme, a good selection procedure, a good ratio of supervisors to guards, all the available technology and holiday pay and to insist that only a certain number of hours are worked per week. A firm may bid in competition with other firms which are prepared to drop standards and it may lose the contract. The spiral downwards in that industry is dramatic. Firms cut costs to the bone in order to sell their services. The companies bidding for the ordnance factories contract would have tried to cut as many corners as possible.
The private security industry is probably one of the most incompetent industries in the country and the Government almost unleashed it on the ordnance factories. We are talking about an industry which has shown itself to be incapable in many respects. Many people working in the industry—a minority, but a worrying minority—have serious criminal records. One company in the home counties was established on the basis of an armed robbery. I could spend hours relating tales about the activities of security guards. I could tell the burning down of factories, of the security guard who admitted that he was frightened of the dark and of guards who have supplied information to criminals so that they could commit robberies or attack security vehicles.
Training is rare in the industry. I attended a training session at which a security guard admitted that that was the first time he had undertaken a training programme although he had worked for 20 firms. Even the big companies provide minimal training.
The Ministry of Defence police force comprises men whose terms, conditions, experience and salaries are comparable with those of Home Office police officers. The men have rigorous training, they are vetted and undertake firearms training. If they fail to meet the firearms qualification they are busted. The men are competent at their jobs. The Government planned to boot them out, deny them their role at the ordnance factories and replace them with contract security men. That is beyond belief.
When the Defence Committee realised what was happening, it literally went bananas. The most vociferous opponents of the Government's proposals were Conservative Members. Even in the Standing Committee Tory Members broke their Trappist vows to speak, because even they realised that their silence would endorse Government policy. They had to get up and make at least a short speech, although they already knew that the Government were about to make a concession.
The Government made the concession for a number of reasons. The first was that the logic of their argument was totally destroyed.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. At least two Conservative Members on the Committee contributed regularly to discussions. None of us took Trappist vows. I certainly participated.

Mr. George: Perhaps we should go through the Official Report with a slide rule to discover not only the inches contributed by Tory Members, but the quality of their contributions. I remember occasional bursts of indifference from Conservatives, but on this issue they were as aggravated as we were. Their loyalty to the Front Bench team remained, but they expressed their opposition.
It is important to remember that opposition to the Government's policy came not only from Labour Members on the Standing Committee and the Select Committee, but from the trade union movement and others. I advise hon. Members to read the evidence given by Jack Dromey of the Transport and General Workers Union to the Select Committee. I thought it good evidence, expressing his concern about what might happen if the Government's proposals went ahead.
I am certain that opposition came from the police. If it did not, the police deserve to be severely criticised. The police have responsibility for monitoring security at ordnance factories and they could not have stood by in indifference while the incompetent were given the responsibility of guarding precious national assets.
It may be difficult to steal a Challenger tank from the ordnance factory at Leeds, but I visited the Enfield ordnance factory this morning with the Defence Committee. It is a veritable Aladdin's cave of machine guns and rifles of all descriptions. I pointed out—the point may have been a little over the top, but it was made with a degree of seriousness — that if the security operations at Enfield had been given to a private security firm, Enfield would have been seen as a soft touch for every terrorist and arms trader wishing to enter the illegal market.
I was worried that, because of their dogma, the Government would inflict on the ordnance factories private security firms that were not up to the job. Ministry of Defence police were aggrieved, not because they would lose their jobs—they would be transferred elsewhere—but because they feared that, with privatisation as originally envisaged, the arms stolen from the new soft touch targets would be used against them at the places to which they were transferred.
4.30 pm
Make no mistake. Ministry of Defence police, because of their close liaison with the police, their access to arms and training and experience going back institutionally many years, act as a deterrent to terrorists or those wishing to steal arms and ammunition. Had private security firms been given the job at Enfield that deterrent would have evaporated. The soft touches would have been a disaster.
The Government have said, "We have now seen the light." As a result of persuasion the Government are now saying, "We shall abandon the concept of contract security and establish a royal ordnance factory police force." That police force will be a private security operation. It may not be a contract security operation. It will be designated as in-house private security. Unless the Government are careful, many of the criticisms that could legitimately be levelled against contract security will be made against in-house private security, which the royal ordnance factory police force is likely to be.
A security officer is not created simply by putting a man into uniform. A special constable is not created merely by giving him constabulary powers. I am worried about what will happen. Ministry of Defence police have the power to make searches. Trade unionists to whom I have spoken say that they are prepared to submit to searches by Ministry of Defence police but not to searches by members of private security operations. A degree of respect has emerged between the work forces in the ordnance factories and the Ministry of Defence police. It takes a long time to create a degree of amity between a police force and a work force.
Ministry of Defence police have built up experience over many years. They know the factories that they guard and every worker within the enterprises. How long will it take, if those police are transferred, to create the same level of knowledge among a scratch police force? I am fairly certain that no member of the Ministry of Defence police force will obtain a job in the royal ordnance factory police, because the wages and conditions will not be as good and pension schemes may be jeopardised. Overwhelming numbers of MOD police will probably go elsewhere. Will the necesary expertise be available to the scratch force?
What powers will the new police force have? Will the private in-house security police force have the power of arrest? Will it have the power to search? Will it have the power—I hope that it will not—to bear arms? MOD police have access to arms and the expertise to use them, and that is a potent deterrent. Members of a private security firm, rightly, cannot carry firearms or even a truncheon. What will be the deterrent effect of an in-house security firm with respect to perimeter fences? We must be honest and realise that a fence is not meant to be a Berlin wall. A perimeter fence delineates Ministry of Defence property and it does not require a great deal of expertise, as the Greenham common peace women have shown, to enter MOD premises with the use of wire cutters and a little imagination.
In the new ordnance factory set-up, as the Minister said, the eventual aim is to remove Ministry of Defence police. When the private security enterprises are left on their own, will they have access to arms? I doubt that they will. Will they have the necessary expertise? Will they be vetted in the same way as MOD police? Information on an applicant to the MOD police who submits himself for investigation goes through the police computer. It is easy, with fingerprinting and investigation, to ascertain whether a member of the Ministry of Defence police force has a criminal record. It is easy to find out whether he is an arsonist or a murderer or has a serious criminal record which should disqualify him from membership of the force.
Will a private security firm have access to criminal records? Will the director of a private security force that is guarding the royal ordnance factories be able to go to the police to say, "Run a check on Fred Bloggs through the police computer and tell me whether he has a serious criminal record"? Such firms should not be permitted to do so, because they do not have the legislative power to make those inquiries.
When one examines closely the enterprise that is meant to be the new great form of security to guard the ordnance factories, one finds that that great force dissolves. It will be a scratch force. It will not have close liaison with the police and the virtue of the current Ministry of Defence

police force of integration with different elements. The ability to transfer personnel from other factories to a factory short of the required manpower will be lacking.
Will the necessary training be given? Will the Minister guarantee that the training of the new royal ordnance factory police force will be at least as rigorous as that undergone by the Ministry of Defence police? If it is less, I shall be even more critical of the scheme concocted by the Minister.
The new royal ordnance factory police force should have proper manning levels. I do not believe that the existing manning levels of MOD police are remotely adequate, and I can express my views privately on that score. In the past few years the level of supervision of the MOD police has been inadequate because of the cuts undertaken by the Government. Supervision must be examined carefully. The new force must prove that it has proper manning, training and supervision levels and that it has the necessary amount of high quality equipment. What powers will the new force have? How will its officers be selected? I regret that the Minister has not yet answered those questions.
The Minister is wrong if he believes that, by tabling this clause which says the Government have now listened to the objections, we shall accept the schedule. The Minister — perhaps he is unaware of what he is doing — is creating a private security force with a different name. Others might be reassured by the Minister's message, but I am not. My questions need to be answered. I deplore the privatisation of the ordnance factories, but the purpose of my speech is to condemn not privatisation of the ordnance factories but the privatisation of security. When the ordnance factories are privatised and we are in the twilight zone post-vesting day, we must be given a guarantee that the security standards of the new force will be at least as good as they are now. There is ample scope to improve security within the existing establishments. No doubt in the not-too-distant future the House will approve the schedule. Anyone who thinks that our criticisms are being met is being sadly deluded.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is a matter of great rejoicing when any person comes to his senses. It is a matter of double rejoicing when a Government do so. It is perhaps a matter of quadruple rejoicing when this Government, who have shown themselves so resistant to changing their policy, come to their senses.
I went through the 23 sittings in Committee with a sinking heart. It was my first Committee and I had been told before I entered the House that Standing Committees provided a quiet and serene atmosphere and the chance to make important changes to legislation. However, the Government set their face obdurately against making any changes irrespective of the quality of the argument advanced from the Opposition Benches.
It was a matter of great rejoicing to me personally, to those who work in royal ordnance factories, to local pollee forces throughout the country, which made clear their opposition to the Government's original intention, and perhaps most of all to the members of the Ministry of Defence police force when it was announced that the Government had had second thoughts.
My faith in the parliamentary democratic system was reassured when the Government decided to make a considerable change to their original intention—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr.


Atkins), who is speaking as usual from a sedentary position — he did so throughout the sittings in Committee — is putting a brave face on the Government's decision to amend their original proposal. I do not intend to deprive the Government of a small fig leaf behind which to shelter. It is not my aim to rub salt in their wounds. However, the new clause represents the Committee's greatest achievement because the Government's original intention, if enacted, would have been their greatest folly. I am opposed to the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories and the Government's greatest folly has been averted. I congratulate the Minister and his team on having recognised their folly, albeit at the last moment. The new clause represents a significant change.
I make no apology for repeating something that I said in Committee, when we heard splendid speeches from the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and others about what goes on in private security firms. As I said in Committee, I have had experiences on the other side of the fence. I was in the Royal Marines in a previous incarnation and I had the task of testing security. It is a matter of grave concern to me that a determined terrorist who is prepared to show courage and to plan effectively can break into practically any organisation should he put his mind to it.
The organisations which are the most at threat are those which cover the largest geographical areas. A royal ordnance factory must be such an organisation per se. It would not be easy to break through the perimeter fence and to penetrate the heart of the organisation, but it would be possible for a determined man to do so if he were prepared to take risks.
Terrorism is escalating and the capacity and ability of terrorists to conduct sophisticated operations against increasing threat-assessment targets is increasing. The hon. Member for Walsall, South has described the nature of royal ordnance factories. They contain tonnes of explosives, hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition and hundreds if not thousands of small arms.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we cannot conceive of a terrorist breaking into one of the royal ordnance factories and lifting a Chieftain tank. That is true, but in Italy during the second world war, and during the Palestine campaign, there were occasions when tanks were stolen. However, I would not expect a tank to be stolen from the royal ordnance factory at Enfield, for example. The nature of the target is tempting for terrorists, and it is the nature of the target and the threat assessment which must make us concerned.
4.45 pm
I reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and others of the necessity to achieve an appropriate level of training. It is the level of training and the nature of the command structure that determine and control the organisation, and both are vital. I make the assumption that the Government have recognised that because that recognition appears to emerge from some of the things which they have written and said. They have talked about unified systems and it seems that they recognise the importance of training and a proper command structure.
Let us assume that the worst aspects of private security firms, which the hon. Member for Walsall, South

discussed, do not materialise and that we manage to set up an organisation in which the training is appropriate and in which there is a single command structure to control the security force. That will leave one massive loophole, and consideration will have to be given to protecting the organisation against attack. Firearms have been used on many occasions in the past and terrorists in Britain and elsewhere are prepared to use them. We must assume that they will use them if they choose to work against a target such as a royal ordnance factory.
Will the security forces that the Government propose have access to firearms in the last analysis? I think that the hon. Member for South Ribble missed the point. Does he think—I note that he is no longer in his place—that private security firms would have the necessary protection? Would they be subject to protecting clauses of the nature of those that extend to the police force and special constables? Does he recognise that it is the Government's intention that they should not have firearms? I have posed a question that perhaps does not have to be answered. I shall quote from the letter which the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, which is dated 15 May. Part of it states:
I should make it clear that it has never been the intention to license security guards, whether engaged by contract or recruited as a company guard force, to bear firearms for security duties.
Was the hon. Member for Walsall, South aware of that when he addressed the House?
I ask the Government most seriously to think again. I am not a legal expert and sometimes when I look around the Chamber and read newspapers I think that the public must believe that half the Members of this place are lawyers and that the other half need them. I hope that I do not come into either category. As I am not a legal expert I cannot comment on whether it would be legally possible to set up a private security force that has the right to bear arms.
Terrorists have the capacity to be ruthless in pursuit of their aims. They have the capacity to use firearms and terrorist acts are becoming more frequent. It would be an act of folly if the Government were to permit the protection of our royal ordnance factories to forces which would not have access to firearms. If the Government can set up a system in which private security firms may have access to firearms, I shall find these provisions less worrying and less damaging than I do now. However, I have a strong suspicion that the security force that is proposed will not have access to firearms, and I ask the Government to recognise that only the Ministry of Defence police can do the job properly and effectively. They are in that position because they have access ultimately to firearms.
I welcome the new clause as a move towards a more sensible system for providing protection, but there is a significant hole in the Government's proposals. That will remain in the absence of the access ultimately to firearms, and the Government's proposals will not assure either the present levels of security for the royal ordnance factories or the increased level of security that many of us would welcome in the light of outside events.

Mr. Peter Pike: I welcome the fact that the Government changed their mind very late in the Committee stage, and I welcome also the amendments that they have tabled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)


expressed concern about arming the defence and security forces at royal ordnance factories. For the reasons that they gave, I believe that the Ministry of Defence police force will continue to maintain security. I do not believe the view that was expressed earlier in the debate from the Government Front Bench that security of some installations and factories may become an in-house matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South is an expert on security firms. He raised some important questions and I shall await the Minister's replies with interest. I shall not waste the time of the House, because other important amendments remain to be discussed.
I hope that the Minister will answer this question. The Bill originally proposed that security should be put out to tender to private security firms. Some bright boy must have thought that that option was feasible and sensible. Many employees feel that if the Bill is passed the amendments and provisions proposed today will not preclude that option from being taken up in future. I am sure the Minister recognises that if the Government, for good reasons, have accepted that the option is not sensible now, it will not be sensible in a few years' time. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the amendments will preclude the ordnance factories from putting security out to tender in a few years' time.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Government's new clause and amendment No. 12 certainly looked good when I skimmed through them. Some hon. Members on both sides of the House have, with reservations, welcomed them. With reservations, I join in that welcome in so far as it is undoubtedly an improvement on a thoroughly inadequate and lax provision. However, once the new clause and the amendment are seen through the eyes of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)— I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House regard him as the authority in the Chamber on the subject—they look far less substantial and secure.
Without wishing to rehearse the problems again, I believe that the Minister must give us more details when he replies to the debate about the special constables, especially their training and powers, the standards to which they must operate and their manning levels, including how those compare with the present Ministry of Defence arrangements. The Government should also take into account the important consideration that they will need to make a good start in setting up the force to give it credibility and the confidence of those working at the factories. It is vitally important that employees at the royal ordnance factories have confidence in the form of policing that the Government will leave when the factories are privatised. What assistance will the Government give in hard financial terms to make sure that special constables are specially trained initially, adequately recruited, and screened? We need to know what sort of grants and assistance the Government will give.
It is not solely a matter of policing. Just to concentrate on the powers and training of special constables is to consider only a part of the problem. We must consider wider problems of security. In Standing Committee on 1 May I asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to report to the Committee on the whole problem of fraud and loss of equipment, and on the drift of security in the royal ordnance factories. As I said to him then, and as he knows well, one of the men to whom he spoke when he visited

ROF Radway Green was arrested a few days later on very serious charges. It became apparent that huge quantities of equipment had gone missing. The House deserves and demands from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the Minister of State and preferably from the Home Secretary a clear statement of what equipment has gone missing in the past few years; its type, source and value. Unless we know the scale of security leaks in the recent past it is difficult for the House to determine whether the security and policing provisions that the Government intend to introduce are adequate.
On 1 May, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary replied:
The ROFs management is looking very carefully at the whole question of controls"— [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 May 1984; c. 814.]
That is fine, but we must know what those reports say. What evidence does the Secretary of State have of the loss, and will he share that evidence with the House, so that hon. Members know what sort of policing and security arrangements will be adequate? Is the reason why the Home Office does not make a statement that Ministers are frightened that it would horrify, shock and scandalise the House? If the Home Secretary gave the facts about the security arrangements in previous months and years at the royal ordnance factories, his answer might lead ordinary, sensible people to think that only Ministry of Defence police, greatly strengthened and better equipped and with a much tougher stance, could possibly do the job and that it would be wholly inadequate for special constables as proposed in the arrangements. Is that why the Home Secretary has not made and possibly does not intend' to make a statement on these grave and important thefts, frauds and security leaks?
The Minister of State should recognise that this is not only a local problem for local police, and the appropriate royal ordnance management to deal with, but a national problem. It is the Government's responsibility to convince the House and the people that these factories manufacture extremely dangerous arms that would be a delight for any terrorist organisation to get its hands on. In view of the Libyan situation and the problems in Northern Ireland, it is essential that the Government assure the House that they are taking the matter seriously as a matter of national security, and not purely as one of local policing.

Mr. Pattie: The House has had a full debate on the matter, so I should like to come straight to the points raised.
Several hon. Members have asked about the training of the guard force. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was the first hon. Member who asked about that. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) asked many questions, as did the hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I must make it clear to the House that the intention, as I hoped I had made clear in my opening remarks, is that the legislative cover will provide for a continuation in post of the Ministry of Defence police, so that on the first day after the transfer the security position will be the same as it is now.
The responsibility for generating and developing the new ROF guard force will be a joint matter for the directors of security at the various ROF factories and the Ministry of Defence police. They will be responsible for developing the training programme in situ and ensuring that it is long enough and of a satisfactory standard and that the manning levels are comparable, or perhaps an


improvement on, the existing ones. These recommendations will be made in the new context by the MOD police, whose responsibility it will be. In the final analysis the Ministry of Defence must be satisfied that security will be sufficient, and the people to whom we shall have recourse for confirmation of that will be the MOD police. In other words, we shall ask them how the training and recruitment programmes are proceeding.
5 pm
We shall also ask whether any existing MOD police have said that they would like to transfer. I have no particular feel about that. The hon. Member for Walsall, South suggested that that was unlikely. I respect the hon. Gentleman's opinion in these matters, but if that assumption is based on the belief that pay and conditions will be less attractive in ROF plc there is no evidence for that. Indeed, among guard forces operating for private companies terms and conditions and pay seem on the whole to be better than those enjoyed by the MOD police. In addition, many MOD policemen are settled in particular areas and may not wish to move. That, too, may be a factor in some cases.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister has made an important statement. As I understand it, he said that the director of security in what would eventually be the private firm and the MOD police would consider the situation and that there might be a recommendation for an increase in manning levels if that was considered necessary. If the private firm says that it cannot afford such an increase, will the MOD police be able to insist on an increase, or will it be left to the commercial judgment of the company?

Mr. Pattie: The final assessment must be made by the MOD, because we must be satisfied that the security arrangements are adequate, as is the case with any company with which we have contractual arrangements. Clearly we should have to take account of reports put to us by the MOD police describing how training was developing and what arrangements had been made. The hon. Member for Walsall, South referred to the possibility of personnel being transferred between factories. It is axiomatic in the concept of an ROF guard force that personnel could be transferred from one factory to another, because it will be a corporate entity.

Mr. George: We should be delighted to hear that from vesting day the royal ordnance factories are to remain a corporate entity, but the Minister and I both know that the purpose of privatisation is to create a package that will then be offered to private contractors. Perhaps he will confirm—or deny—a rumour that I have heard that a German firm is already seeking to put in a bid for ROF Enfield. If it does so and the bid is accepted—I hope to God that that will not happen — will the Minister insist that security arrangements in any part of the ROFs flogged off to the private sector meet the standards laid down by MOD as a base line? That is crucial. It is vital that the Minister should give a commitment to the House that once the factories are sold off-let us be honest about it, that is the intention of the legislation on which we have spent 24 Committee sittings—minimum MOD standards will be maintained even in the private sector.

Mr. Pattie: In a word, yes, because that is exactly what we now insist on in dealing with people who manufacture

guided weapons for us, the difference being that until now they have not been a Government Department. A number of companies are involved, not just in highly sensitive work in terms of classification levels, but in the manufacture of highly lethal items. They must satisfy us that they have adequate security arrangements, or they will not get the business. Therefore, I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I have no knowledge of the rumour to which he referred, but he may care to raise that matter if we have the opportunity to debate the subject of foreign control. I shall then be able to tell him that the Government hold clear views about the possibility of foreign control of any part of the ordnance factories.
Hon. Members have asked about the possibility of the guard force being able to bear arms. As I said in my letter to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, which was circulated to members of the Standing Committee and quoted by the hon. Member for Yeovil, we do not intend to license the guard force to carry arms. I should make it clear that in the interim situation the MOD police will be withdrawn establishment by establishment as the Ministry of Defence is satisfied about the arrangements, on the basis of reports that we receive and consultations that we have with the local police and assessments of the threat.
I believe that too much is made of the present ability of MOD police to carry arms. I am advised that they have actually been authorised to draw arms on only one occasion. I am aware of the opinion of the hon. Member for Yeovil as a former Royal Marines officer that a determined and well-planned assault would be likely to succeed, but I believe that it would be equally likely to succeed whether or not weapons were being carried by the guard force at the time. The key question is whether there is an adequate level of physical security at the factory in question, coupled with proper surveillance. By that I do not mean having large numbers of people wandering around the perimeters. I am talking about devices to detect intruders. A rapid response arrangement is also needed with the local police force, with an ability to arrive on the scene within minutes according to their judgment of the nature of the threat.

Mr. Ashdown: On this key point, does the Minister appreciate the deep contradiction in the two statements that he has made? He said that he did not wish the standard and quality of security to be diminished, but that the people concerned would not bear arms. If he cannot see that not having access to arms seriously diminishes security in the final analysis, I am very surprised. I ask him to reconsider this and to recognise that the important point is not so much the number of occasions on which arms have been issued, but whether ready access to arms by the guard force would be a deterrent to a determined terrorist. I am surprised that I have to tell a Conservative Minister about the value of deterrence, but he must realise that if there is no access to arms in the final analysis many terrorists will rightly view these valuable, prime targets as a soft touch.

Mr. Pattie: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not agree with him. What the terrorists will want to know is the difference between the present situation, in which MOD police do not carry arms, and the situation in the future.

Dr. John Gilbert: The MOD police have access to arms.

Mr. Pattie: The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that the MOD police have access to arms.

Dr. Gilbert: I shall stand up if the Minister wishes.

Mr. Pattie: In that case, I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. I hope he will accept that access to arms is not the same as carrying arms. The MOD police force, as a matter of custom, is not an armed guard force. The fact that its members can on certain special occasions draw arms—and have done once in the past 10 or 11 years—does not, in our view, affect the final outcome of the situation. We recognised the strength of feeling on that subject, and so we made certain that security would be reviewed step by step and factory by factory. The schedule and new clause will ensure that the Ministry of Defence police will retain their current powers and remain at each establishment for as long as the Ministry of Defence deems it necessary.

Mr. Churchill: We accept that there are many ways in which the physical security of such installations can be assured. My hon. Friend referred to different sensors, devices and security systems. However, he must go further than either he or his ministerial colleagues have gone in making his case that an armed presence at these establishments has been unnecessary until now, and will be unnecessary, despite what many hon. Members feel is a growing, not diminishing, terrorist threat, whether from Ireland or Libya. Successive Governments have believed that an armed presence is necessary, but my hon. Friend has told the House that it will not be necessary in future. The House is entitled to know the full information behind his reasons.

Mr. Pattie: The Government believe that if we ask the intelligence authority and local police what the threat to an individual establishment will be, and they tell us that the Ministry of Defence police should remain and retain their existing powers, they will remain. The clause and schedule provide for that.

Dr. Gilbert: I apologise for not being present to hear the Minister's opening remarks. I was visiting the royal ordnance factory at Enfield, where small arms are made. Although there is a technical difference between carrying and drawing arms, wherever the Ministry of Defence police have arms, they are in a guard room. A man is locked in the guard room with the arms and has authority to issue them when he thinks that is necessary. I echo the view of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that it is unbelievable—I listened with growing incredulity to the Minister, for whom I have great respect—that the Minister should argue in defence of not having armed police at ordnance factories. It passes belief. It is equivalent to giving terrorists the same sort of signal as we gave Argentina when we withdrew HMS Endurance—it is an open invitation. If the hon. Gentleman does not see that, I am amazed.

Mr. Pattie: Perhaps I should have restricted my remarks and said nothing about the future. I was attempting to assist the House and have a short debate.
The new clause and the schedule empower ROF plc to have Ministry of Defence police. That is a nice, short speech. I should move that and sit down. [Interruption.]

Until the Ministry of Defence is satisfied, it reserves the right to regard the ordnance factories in the same way as any factory that is producing highly sensitive or lethal material. Decisions may not be taken on an ROF-wide basis. Some factories may be deemed to be more sensitive than others. The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) visited the small arms factory at Enfield. He will accept that that factory is a different sort of terrorist target from Leeds, Bishopston, Bridgwater—

Dr. Gilbert: Radway Green.

Mr. Pattie: —or Radway Green. The factory at Enfield is not a greater of lesser target, but a different sort of target. Its products are more readily usable and marketable.
It is a question of degree. The nature of the threat will vary either with the physical position of the factory or the nature of the product being handled. The House need not be as worried as it seems to be, in view of the assurances that I have given.
We have had what some hon. Members have unkindly described as a deathbed repentance. I am glad that we have been given credit for being, as it were, big enough to change our minds. The provision ensures that ROF plc will have Ministry of Defence police after vesting day until the Ministry of Defence is satisfied that the security arrangements are adequate. I assure the House that everything that is said today and that is being prepared by the Select Committee will be considered carefully.
5.15 pm
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central asked about Radway Green on 1 May. He will not expect me to comment on a matter that is sub judice. It would not be appropriate to make a general statement about security in the ROFs until that case is disposed of. The theft and pilferage rate is assessed as being extremely low in relation to the size of the turnover, which is more than £400 million. With the conspicuous exception of the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the pilferage rate is extremely low. He will not expect me to comment in detail on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) asked whether Ministry of Defence police could transfer to the guard force. They can apply to transfer. I was attempting to help the hon. Member for Walsall, South when I said earlier that many of them might choose to do so for domestic reasons.
When I met the trade unions, they made strong representations about the ease of infiltration. We had the famous Dromey-Burns Securities story—which was very interesting and entertaining — about the ability to infiltrate a security firm. They also made a valid point about the resistance of the work force to being stopped and searched by an outside body.
I hope that the hon. Member for Walsall, South will appreciate that both those points are taken care of by the fact that the body will be recruited in-house. It will be supervised, trained, recruited and brought into being by Ministry of Defence police. The work force will therefore have access to and be familiar with the people who will be recruited into that body. Thus, it will not be an external body, and will be in exactly the same position as the guard force. Many hon. Members on their visits to factories, such as British Aerospace, Marconi and Dowty


Electronics Ltd., will have been stopped, asked for their identity passes and given little tags to wear. They know that security arrangements are as tight as they need to be.
I shall not detain the House further on this point. I hope that hon. Members believe that the new clause and schedule are necessary and that we can look forward to their support.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, may I immediately say that the Minister has made heavy weather of a proposal that most of us wished to welcome. However, the more he tried to explain it, the greater became our worries about the formation of the in-house security guard. It was tremendously naive for the Minister to say that the withdrawal of the Ministry of Defence police force would depend upon the assessment of a threat at any time. Will that mean that the MOD police will be in and out of factories if there are different threats in different areas at different times? We must think not only about Libya and the IRA, because threats might arise from other sources and in different circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) mentioned the straight gangster threat from someone who wishes to make a great deal of money on the illegal arms market.
The Minister said that, in relation to turnover, the amount of pilfering is extremely low and not something about which we should be too worried. However, what matters in this case is what is likely to be pilfered. If a revolver, pistol or rifle is pilfered it might have no relevance in terms of the percentage of turnover, but it could cause considerable danger. The Minister does not seem to take the point that this is not a party matter. It affects national security, and we are all anxious about it. They are unique factories and the items that can be stolen and used by terrorist forces must be considered separately.
We shall not force a Division on this new clause because we welcome it as far as it goes. However, the Minister has not satisfied the House about many matters, and I hope that before the first withdrawal of MOD police at a factory occurs he will return to the House and justify his decision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

PREVENTION OF TAKE-OVERS BY NON-RESIDENTS

'The Secretary of State may not dispose of any securities issued to him as a result of the making of a scheme under section 1 to any person who is not resident in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and any subsequent transfer of such securities by any person whatsoever to any such person shall be null and void.'.—[Mr. Denzil Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 44, at end insert,
'and unless such disposal has been authorised by an affirmative resolution of the House of commons.'.

Mr. Davies: New clause 1 attempts to prevent the foreign takeover of ordnance factories or parts of them.
Amendment No. 5 is not directly related, but seeks a debate in the House before the Secretary of State sells to the private sector shares in the companies that will be formed by him if the Bill becomes law.
I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement will not make as heavy weather of this new clause as did the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on new clause 4. This is a difficult area of drafting and of substance. How will it be possible to prevent ordnance factories or any privatised defence establishments from becoming controlled by someone outside the United Kingdom? That control could be exercised either by owning shares in the company, which is primarily what the new clause addresses—perhaps it is defective for that reason—or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) suggested, the factory could be sold to foreign interests.
The Minister has given hon. Members some assurances on the Floor of the House and in Committee that the Government understand this problem. However, the Bill contains nothing to prevent shares from being sold to foreign interests. At the end of the day we are concerned with legislation, not with company articles of association, fancy shares, or whatever arrangements the Government are concocting to solve their dilemma. Once they move into the private market place, it is illogical for the Government to say that some people cannot own shares. The purist's view of privatisation is that it does not matter who owns shares. But the Government are worried because they do not want Colonel Gaddafi, for example, to own a huge chunk of the Enfield factory, or any other factory, through trusts or nominees. We put down this amendment because we want not only assurances but written guarantees in the Bill.
We saw yesterday how difficult this subject is in the statement on the proposed takeover of British Aerospace by Thorn-EMI, as it likes to call itself. Even if we ensure that the shares in the company are not sold to foreign interests, how can we prevent mergers or takeovers? No doubt the Under-Secretary will tell us that the Government will manage to insert safeguards in the articles so that foreigners cannot own more than 15 per cent. of the shares. But what if there is a takeover by a conglomerate—a company making crisps, which seems to be the way that we are going? Will the 15 per cent. rule apply to the other company? There are great difficulties in relying on juggling articles of association and share rights to solve the problem.
I am grateful for the letter that I received from the Minister—no doubt he will outline it during his speech—which talks about a 15 per cent. limit and about what is called a golden share. It is extraordinary that capitalists and those who are apparently concerned with the law of the market place should insert a provision that, in some circumstances, the Secretary of State can deem himself to own more shares than everyone else put together. My hon. Friends will wish to scrutinise the articles carefully. Perhaps we should have thought of this when we were in Government; it would have made some of the nationalisation Acts of 1945 much easier. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry could have been deemed to own 1 million shares and could have swamped everyone else.
We are not sure whether those arrangements conform to company law. They were tried only once in the case of Britoil, and it was not clear from the Secretary of State's


statement yesterday whether they would apply to British Aerospace. The courts have never decided whether it is legal to have special shares or a 15 per cent. limit on foreign ownership. That is why we would prefer a cast-iron guarantee written into the Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—we went through this in great detail in Committee — that many structures in the private sector within the capital and articles of association of companies have been frequently tried in the High Court? Shareholdings and guarantees such as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned are readily and frequently available.

Mr. Davies: In Committee we deferred to the great expertise of the hon. Gentleman in these matters. I am sure he knows of large numbers of companies where foreign people have bought 15 per cent. and then have been forced to sell their shares. I do not know of any. Perhaps he knows of a lot of companies which have something called a gold share by which one person can be deemed to have more shares than anyone else. I would have thought it was slightly unusual even in regard to the stock exchange.
In his letter the Under-Secretary said that the proposal would have to be approved by the stock exchange. Has he asked the stock exchange for approval? Has he asked it what its rules are in this regard? What if the stock exchange does not approve it? This is not the way to prevent a major defence manufacturing company from going into the hands of people outside the country who at some time may wish to act contrary to the national interests of Britain.
I accept entirely the difficulty of drafting, but the Under-Secretary will have the same difficulty with the drafting of the articles of association as I have had with the new clause. It would be better to have something in the Bill. Unless we get cast-iron assurances we shall still want a provision in the legislation, however much the Under-Secretary wishes to play around with the articles of association.
The purpose of amendment No. 5 is to have a debate in the House, albeit of only one and a half hours, which is all we can have on a motion for affirmative resolution, before the Secretary of State sells off the shares. Apart from a technicality in the winding up of the trading fund, once the Bill is passed the House will have no opportunity to debate the next step which is even more important. While we object to the first step, at least it still means that the ordnance factories remain totally in Government control.
We are concerned about the second step, which the Bill does not cover. The second step involves the selling off of shares to private industry. A host of problems arise. Price is one of them. At the end of the day, what price will the Government get for the shares? We know that it will cost £250 million merely to safeguard the pension rights of existing employees. Whatever sleight of hand the Government may wish to perform, in effect that figure has to come out of the purchase price they will get. On top of that there will be vast expenses for their friends in the city, people with great expertise in fiddling around and drafting different share articles. Up to now privatisation has cost the taxpayer in fees and commission £16 million, a very large sum, so these matters should be debated in the House before the Secretary of State goes off to the City to sell the shares.
In Committee the valuation of the assets of the ordnance factories caused great difficulties and we did not get satisfactory answers. Valuation impinges upon the price.
This may seem to be a simple matter of looking at the balance sheet and finding out what the values are, but we are in a completely different situation. There is a trading fund and not even a company. It is purely an accountancy device. We were told by the Under-Secretary that the assets in the trading fund will never be valued on the basis of market value, but according to some internal valuation. It will be a bureaucratic valuation carried out within a Government Department. As I understand it, when a factory is sold off to the public there will be no point at which its assets will be valued by independent valuers so that we can see exactly the worth of the ordnance factories.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): If we move towards privatisation by way of flotation, which is the most likely course, and which was talked about frequently in Committee and on Second Reading, the stock exchange itself would require independent valuations to be made and disclosed in any prospectus of the fixed assets.

Mr. Davies: I am coming to that. The hon. Gentleman made some point of this in Committee. He mentioned only fixed assets and not all the other assets. Stock exchange requirements are limited. Our concern is that it is not just fixed assets that will be involved. The ordnance factories have intangible assets such as copyrights, patents and designs, many of which are shared with the Ministry of Defence. These do not appear in the balance sheet and will never be valued. All that will be valued will be the fixed assets such as plant and machinery and perhaps some land. Why do the Government not concede that all assets over a minimum value of, say, £5,000 should be valued properly by an independent firm of valuers so that we may find out, as far as one can in these matters, the worth of the company?

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The Minister knows that in a factory he has visited there are things which could not be given a value because of the secrecy involved. How will the stock exchange deal with such a proposition?

Mr. Davies: I am sure the Under-Secretary will have an answer to that. I do not think he can hide behind the stock exchange because it does not concern itself too much with these matters, as he knows very well. My fear is that the ordnance factories will be valued purely on the basis of their profits over the last few years. That is one yardstick of valuation which has to be taken into account but it should not be the only yardstick, especially when there are very important assets, particularly intangible assets of intellectual property or however they are described, which can never be valued. In fairness to the taxpayer they should be valued. I do not understand why the Government resist this proposal. I should have thought that the Government would want a proper independent market valuation so as to get the best price and reduce the PSBR.

Mr. John Golding: Did the chairman not let the cat out of the bag by telling us what the valuation was and how it would be downgraded?

Mr. Davies: I am not aware how much the chairman let out of the bag, but figures have been bandied about. We


have heard a figure of £300 million on the basis of the profits of the last couple of years and multiplying or dividing by five, or however these things are done. That is not the proper way to value a public asset in the defence sector. There are other methods. We are not asking for very much. We are asking the Government only to get an independent firm of valuers to value the assets properly. Then the company can be valued on the basis of its profits and also of its assets. In that way we can all be satisfied.
We dislike and oppose what the Government are doing but we do not wish private interests to make a killing. They should not acquire a company at a low price because the Government have not bothered to get a proper valuation of the assets. That is one reason why we wish to have a debate before the shares are sold. There are other reasons which I shall not go into now because other hon. Members wish to speak.
New clause 1 is concerned about putting into the Bill whatever cast-iron guarantees the Under-Secretary has. I do not think he has cast-iron guarantees. Our purpose is to prevent foreign control or take over of the ordnance factories.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: In his opening remarks the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said that he hoped new clause 1 was not defective. Sadly, I must tell him that it is. We went through this exercise in Standing Committee, when the Opposition sought to draft an amendment to give precisely the protection for the national interest which all hon. Members on both sides of the House agree we need.
I am not a lawyer, and I stand to be corrected, but I suggest that if the new clause were carried as drafted it would in no way deliver the security that we are all seeking. I believe that a person can be a citizen of this country, but resident overseas and that one can be resident but not a citizen. I hope that we are seeking to ensure that the shareholding, such as we will allow, will be held by citizens of this country. We would not wish an over-large investment in our royal ordnance factories to be held by "residents" who are not citizens.
Another angle in the way in which the new clause is drafted also causes me concern. The presumption is that there will always be direct shareholding by individuals in ROF plc. It is possible that ROF plc will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of a large group. Therefore, there would be no direct shareholding — there would be only the ownership by the parent company of the subsidiary.
I sympathise with the Opposition's intentions, but the new clause will not realise them. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is correct in providing that very necessary protection by limiting foreign shareholding through the articles of association of the new company. That is the only way in which it can be done.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I have the privilege of representing a considerable number of employees at the ROF at Barnbow. When discussing amendments that look beyond the change of status of the ROFs to the means of privatisation that will follow, it is right to acknowledge that there is widespread concern and mistrust among employees about the effect of the legislation. It is equally fair to say that that mistrust and concern arise from the long delays in the legislative process, which is now

reaching culmination. It arises also from the unrelenting propaganda from the unions seeking to link privatisation with asset stripping rather than with opportunity.
Amendment No. 5 touches upon an extremely important matter relating to what the Government propose the private introduction of capital to mean. Much propaganda has come from the trade unions on this. For example, one leaflet says of the ROFs:
Their long record of successful production and profitability is threatened by the piecemeal sale of factories and the danger of asset-stripping.
If that was an accurate reflection of Government motives and intentions amendment No. 5 would be important, because we would need the opportunity to debate again the details of the method of privatisation.
However, on 30 January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all the employees of the ROFs, saying:
The preferred solution is that the holding company itself should be the vehicle for outside shareholders and employees to take a stake in the business. But as time passes it may be possible that one or more of the subsidiary companies would wish to attract direct investment. One thing must be clear from my point of view. I do not envisage a situation where these subsidiary companies could be sold to someone who would wish to close them down to eliminate competition with their existing business. I wish to increase competition not to reduce it, so I would not be attracted by such offers.
I hope that my hon. Friend can give assurances in unambiguous terms that that remains the Government's policy and that employees can look forward to continuing employment in the ROFs in their privatised status. It is better to get that sorted out before Third Reading rather than postpone such a debate into the long future.
It is important that we now bring to an end the fears and concerns among the work force, and that can be done only by an unambiguous statement about the preferred method by which the Government will proceed to introduce private capital. The Government must reject the idea of any asset stripping, which is the root cause of concern among employees.
Having been a solicitor dealing with companies of varying sizes, I am amazed that the Opposition are surprised that company articles can be used to achieve the results sought by the Government. It is a perfectly standard, routine matter of drafting, from the smallest to the largest companies, to give differential rights to different shares in specified circumstances. There can be no real objection to that process.
My overwhelming preference for the method of privatisation is the flotation of the shares in the ROFs on the stock exchange. Therefore, new clause 1 is wholly defective, because it would undermine such flotation. It would place artificial restrictions on the marketability of the shares on the stock exchange, without achieving the result sought by the Opposition.
I seek assurances that the Government stand firmly by the undertaking given by the Secretary of State in his letter to employees on 30 January regarding the method of privatisation. Given that, I shall oppose both the new clause and the amendment.

Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) had served on the Committee, he would not have made the naive request for an unambiguous statement from the Government. Throughout the debate on Second


Reading and in Committee we have had nothing but the most vague assurances. When we have asked for unambiguous statements, we have not had them.
I welcome some of the hon. Gentleman's comments about asset stripping. But again he displays his naivety because that must be one of the purposes of people acquiring shares in the ROFs. When the ROFs are privatised there must be a temptation for the assets to be stripped. In Committee we considered several tempting areas, such as the 268 freehold houses that will be sold with the ROFs. Other areas will be tempting for asset stripping.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary shows courage in coming here to answer the debate. Both valuation and foreign ownership — and the two are intimately connected—were raised in Committee, when he took a terrible battering from the Opposition. To his credit, he took that, but he had no answers. His hon. Friends in Committee sat behind him in embarrassed silence. It takes courage for him to come to the House and take more medicine. I hope that he will learn something and include some controls in the legislation.
The Government have been extremely shaky about the question of ownership and foreign control. When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary replied to the Second Reading debate, he said:
There is no reason why foreign investment … should be prevented simply because it is foreign investment." — [Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 105.]
We had to tell him then, and we tell him now, that the ROFs are British defence interests. If he will not protect the national interest and ensure that the ROFs are kept in British hands, we will have to do that for him. He should have learnt by now that the country, the employees in the factories and the Opposition are not content to allow ownership of shares in the factories to be held by foreign nationals and foreign companies. That is a wholly unacceptable proposition.
Control is of crucial importance. On Second Reading the Parliamentary Under-Secretary sought to give some assurances. He referred to the Industry Act 1975, and said:
the statutory powers are complex. They have never been used, and it might be inadvisable to rely solely upon them." —[Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 105.]
He was right. After the debate I looked at the Act, and it specifies a 30 per cent. holding before the Secretary of State can act. If the Government sell 51 per cent. of the shares in the ROFs, 30 per cent. of the whole company means total control. The Government have already said, to their discredit, that they do not intend to discharge their responsibilities and act for the 49 per cent. shareholding that they will continue to hold. Therefore, 30 per cent. of the entire company will, effectively, be 60 per cent. of the voting shares. Even before the Industry Act technically could be triggered, foreign nationals could have control.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is most unfair in his selective quotation. He should have continued to quote my speech, when I said:
An alternative course would be to include in the articles of association of the company an article conferring on the Secretary of State, who for this purpose would always retain a stated minimum shareholding of the company, certain powers exercisable in the event of an attempted take-over of the company by overseas interests." — [Official Report, 16 January 1984; Vol. 52, c. 105.]

Mr. Fisher: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave two assurances, one about the Industry Act—which he

virtually torpedoed by saying that it was unreliable and too shaky—and one in relation to the articles of association. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) pointed out that we had since had a letter from him about that. I agree that the articles of association method is better so far as it goes, but the Under-Secretary cannot let us labour in the belief that the changes in the articles of association will be sufficient.
How will the Minister prevent the laundering of the ownership of shares; how will he identify ownership; and how will he ensure that the activities of holding companies will not result in foreign capital effectively owning and controlling the new company? It is extremely difficult authoritatively to identify the ownership of companies. Indeed, what is the definition of a British company? How will the Minister react to multinationals?
For example, would Procter and Gamble, which has been in this country since before the war and is well established in the north-east, be considered a British company or part of an American multinational corporation? If that company bought it, would he consider that to be a British company in ownership? There are many other foreign multinational companies in Britain which might see an attractive investment opportunity here. He should, therefore, define British ownership, British shareholdings and the phrase "British company". If he cannot do that, any change in the articles of association will not be sufficient.
If the Government are prepared to use the idea of the golden share, does the Under-Secretary not accept the logic that they should also use their responsibilities for the 49 per cent. of the shares which, I hope, the Government will own, even if they sell 51 per cent., so giving control to non-governmental sources? If the Government are prepared to use the golden share, why are they not prepared to accept their responsibilities for appointing directors and controlling the policy of the company to the extent of that 49 per cent.?
I do not see what protection the Minister is offering and what powers he has to prevent the resale of shares after their initial sale. Bearing in mind the complex ownership of shares that may follow, while we accept his good intent in relation to the changes in the articles of association, he cannot logically say, "We assure the House that ownership of the royal ordnance factories will remain in British hands."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli pointed out that it was a matter not simply of ownership but of unanswered questions and issues over which the House must retain scrutiny. That is particularly true of the question of valuation, and on that the Government have much to answer. We may not have time to deal with that today; perhaps we shall return to it on Third Reading.
On the valuation of the assets, the preparation of the new balance sheet, about which the Under-Secretary told us in Committee, the depreciation policy, and the question of valuing both the assets of the company and the shares for flotation, the Government have not even begun to answer the outstanding questions.
We see clearly from the dilatory way in which the Government have addressed the same problems in relation to the privatisation of British Telecom — where suddenly, in the last half-yearly accounts, £993 million has been depreciated from that company—that the House of Commons must maintain tight scrutiny of the way in which this company is prepared for flotation. We must see how


the Comptroller and Auditor General inspects those matters, remembering, of course, that the Inland Revenue is involved. We have every right, in protecting the public purse, to keep the closest watch over these matters, and only by an affirmative resolution of this House should any further action be taken.

Mr. Lee: The House will know that it has always been the Government's intention to prevent any possibility of the new ROF company coming under foreign control. We made that clear on Second Reading and many times in Committee. We have always taken the view that the most satisfactory means of achieving that is by way of appropriate provision in the articles of association of the company, after it has ceased to be under Government control, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) expressed agreement with that course. One can in that way tailor the provisions to the precise needs of the company as they are seen at the time.
We undertook in Committee to produce a draft of the relevant articles of association, and that we did in a letter dated 26 April, which was distributed at the 23rd sitting of the Committee. The draft articles are, of necessity, detailed and may not immediately be easy to understand, but the principle behind them is simple. The company is required to maintain a register of shares which, or interest in which, are held by people who are not British citizens. The number of shares so held must be entered in the register and must not exceed 15 per cent. of the total issued share capital of the company.
If the transfer of shares to non-British citizens, and their subsequent entry on to the register, raises the number of such shares above the 15 per cent. limit, the directors of the company are empowered to sell so many shares as are necessary to reduce the number so registered to the maximum of 15 per cent.
Normally, the shares so sold will be those most recently acquired, but the directors are empowered to sell others if adherence to the normal rule should, in any particular case, cause injustice. In the meantime, the voting rights attached to the surplus of shares above 15 per cent. are removed from the holder of the shares and are vested in the chairman of any meeting at which any such vote might be cast. By these means, foreign interest in the company is limited to a comparatively small proportion of the total share capital, and the possibility of foreign control is thereby avoided.
The articles which contain these provisions are protected from subsequent alteration by means of a special share, to be held by the Secretary of State, the effect of which is to give him a power of veto over any attempt to change the articles in question. The special share also enables the Secretary of State to veto the sale of any substantial—"material"—part of the business, meaning more than 15 per cent. by value of the business, or producing more than 15 per cent. of the profits. It would be open for consideration at the time whether he should exercise this power in the case of a projected sale to a British interest, but he would certainly do so to prevent a sale to any foreign interest. These articles are based on earlier privatisation precedents.
Under article 223 of the Treaty of Rome, any member state

may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material".
All this was explained to members of the Standing Committee when the draft articles were given to them.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) explained why the Opposition would prefer to see the new clause in the Bill rather than rely on the articles of association. Apart from the fact that, in the view of the Government, a provision in the Bill would be inappropriate, the Opposition's proposal would not achieve what I thought all interested parties wished to see—the prevention of any foreign control of the new ROF company.
The clause would preclude the sale of shares in the company only to non-residents of the United Kingdom. It would not prevent the sale of shares to foreigners who were resident here, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) pointed out. It would not render void the purchase of shares by a company registered in the United Kingdom but wholly owned, and therefore controlled, by a foreign company. It would be a simple matter for the control of the new ROF company to pass out of British hands in that way, and the new clause would do nothing to prevent it.
The new clause would be unhelpful, because it would not merely fail to achieve its evident objective, but would impose such a restriction on the marketing of shares in the new company as would be likely seriously to impair the chances of successful privatisation by the flotation of shares on the market. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet, who accompanied me when I visited the factory in his constituency, that we have every intention of handling the privatisation by way of the flotation of the combined ROFs' operations.
There is nothing wrong with foreign investment as such. We should welcome it as long as it falls well short of foreign control. Opposition Members appear to be disagreeing, but when we have wider debates on defence there is always pressure from both sides of the House for collaboration in defence. Let us not forget that the ROFs sell about 40 per cent. of their output overseas. There is nothing wrong with individual foreigners or foreign companies owning certain shares in the new ROF organisation, as long as such ownership does not go over the 15 per cent. figure. There is much to be said for it. We look to the ROFs to develop and expand their business and to supply new overseas markets. The Opposition should not be so narrow and protective.
6 pm
Given our undertakings to take steps in the articles of association of the privatised company to prevent the company from falling under foreign control and to grant the Government continuing powers to determine the appropriateness of any company proposal to sell to a third company a significant part of its business, I hope that the Opposition will accept that the main objective has been satisfactorily secured and will not therefore press their new clause to a Division. If they do, I reiterate that the Government will advise the House to resist it.

Mr. Fisher: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that ROF employees are proud to be servants of the Crown and do no want any part of the company to be foreign owned?

Mr. Lee: Of course the employees are proud to work for the ROFs, and one is aware of that because of their desire to remain civil servants. They are also proud of selling about 40 per cent. of their products overseas. They are proud of their export record and of the Queen's Award for Exports, which they have won on a number of occasions. They look to the wider world market.
We emphasise that we are determined to keep the new ROF company under British control. We are not prepared to see foreign investment go beyond the 15 per cent. mark.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has worked himself up into a bit of a lather. We did not see such emotion in Committee, so we are glad to see it now. He obviously feels stongly about this matter. The hon. Gentleman is on the horns of a dilemma. He says on the one hand that he wants foreign investment, but on the other that he does not want too much. He says that our new clause will not affect anything and will not stop any foreign control, but he also says that if the new clause is passed the shares will not be marketable. I do not quite understand how he can reconcile the two.
I accept that the drafting of the new clause is not perfect, but the articles of association are not perfect either, and we both recognise that this is a difficult problem. Nobody can see into the future and the different machinations of the solicitors, who will draft different articles, and it may be possible to get around these articles. The whole history of drafting shows that whatever one drafts somebody will find a hole in it. Our main objection is to frustrate that in this case.
If the hon. Gentleman does not want our new clause in the Bill, why does he not put in the articles of association? We would accept that, because it is better to enshrine something in legislation. One's objectives are less likely to be defeated or overturned if that is done than if they are left in articles of association, which can be overturned. It is no good the solicitors and the stockbrokers on the Conservative Benches telling me that it is normal and natural to have such articles of association. Of course it is not. The Government worked very hard, but they could not do this for their first privatisation measure.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Ask a merchant banker.

Mr. Davies: That would cost far too much money. The Government may be prepared to pay these large fees—their immediate instinct seems to be to ask a merchant banker and pay him a large fee. If the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) wishes to say something, he should get up for the first—or is it the second? —time to make a point.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Do not encourage him.

Mr. Davies: I shall follow my hon. Friend's advice and not encourage the hon. Member for Dorset, North.
There is no absolute guarantee on this, but it is better to enshrine something in the legislation than to fiddle around with articles of association, creating funny and bogus share rights which could be challenged in the courts by anybody who was determined to challenge them. The Government could lose such a case and we might end up with foreign control.
I believe that the Government's intentions are honourable, so let us have them clearly enshrined in the Bill, which is the proper place for them to be. We shall

vote for new clause 1, not because we think that it is perfect — it is not, but nor is the Under-Secretary's drafting—but because this is the proper constitutional way to proceed, by having such a provision debated in the House and passed as part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 215.

Division No. 304]
[6.04pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Lamond, James


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Barnett, Guy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barron, Kevin
Loyden, Edward


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Hugh


Bell, Stuart
McCrea, Rev William


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Blair, Anthony
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Madden, Max


Caborn, Richard
Marek, Dr John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maxton, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Meacher, Michael


Clay, Robert
Michie, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Nellist, David


Craigen, J. M.
O'Brien, William


Crowther, Stan
Park, George


Dalyell, Tam
Parry, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pike, Peter


Deakins, Eric
Prescott, John


Dewar, Donald
Radice, Giles


Dixon, Donald
Randall, Stuart


Dormand, Jack
Redmond, M.


Dubs, Alfred
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Eastham, Ken
Rooker, J. W.


Fatchett, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fisher, Mark
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Forrester, John
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Snape, Peter


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Golding, John
Straw, Jack


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hardy, Peter
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wareing, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Welsh, Michael


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Wilson, Gordon


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Woodall, Alec


Hoyle, Douglas
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)



Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Janner, Hon Greville
Mr. Prank Haynes.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Baldry, Anthony


Alexander, Richard
Batiste, Spencer


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Beggs, Roy


Alton, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Ashdown, Paddy
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bottomley, Peter






Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lang, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Latham, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lawler, Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Lawrence, Ivan


Budgen, Nick
Lee, John (Pendle)


Butler, Hon Adam
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carttiss, Michael
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Cash, William
Lightbown, David


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
McCrindle, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Cope, John
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Couchman, James
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Crouch, David
Madel, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Malins, Humfrey


Eggar, Tim
Malone, Gerald


Emery, Sir Peter
Maples, John


Evennett, David
Marlow, Antony


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mather, Carol


Forman, Nigel
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forth, Eric
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Freud, Clement
Moate, Roger


Gale, Roger
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Galley, Roy
Montgomery, Fergus


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moore, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Greenway, Harry
Murphy, Christopher


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Neale, Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Needham, Richard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Onslow, Cranley


Harris, David
Osborn, Sir John


Harvey, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hawksley, Warren
Parris, Matthew


Hayes, J.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hayhoe, Barney
Penhaligon, David


Hayward, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, Barry


Heddle, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Henderson, Barry
Powley, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hickmet, Richard
Price, Sir David


Hill, James
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hirst, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Renton, Tim


Holt, Richard
Rhodes James, Robert


Hooson, Tom
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hordern, Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howard, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Ho wart h, Gerald (Cannock)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rowe, Andrew


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ryder, Richard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jessel, Toby
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Silvester, Fred


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kirkwood, Archibald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





Soames, Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Speed, Keith
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanley, John
Watson, John


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitfield, John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. John Major.


van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES' RIGHTS

'When a person employed in the Civil Service of the state is to become employed by a company and would not do so if it were not for a scheme made under section 1(1) then, before such a scheme is made, the Secretary of State shall ask the Government Actuary to establish whether or not such change of employment will cause any financial detriment to such person, in particular in respect of pension and redundancy rights and the terms and conditions of employment, and if it is established that there would be such financial detriment then no scheme shall be made until such persons have been fully compensated.'. — [Mr. McNamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
A theme which ran through most of our debates in Committee was what will happen to the 20,000 civil servants who will suddenly lose the Civil Service status and conditions of employment which they had previously enjoyed. Seeking to allay the fears of their employees, the Government argued that there would be no detriment to them in their terms and conditions of employment under the denationalised royal ordnance factories and that they would not differ from those which exist at present in the factories operated by the trading fund.
Four issues were of concern to the employees: the indexation of pensions, redundancy, the statutory redundancy provisions, and the two different levels of treatment for those employed by the ROFs before vesting date and those taking new employment after. If I concentrate my remarks on the first two matters it is not because I regard the other two as being unimportant but because of the pressure of time.
On Second Reading the Minister gave the impression that all the terms and conditions relating to redundancy would be transferred to the new ROF plc, but he refused to write that undertaking into the Bill. The new management of the privatised ROFs are unwilling to accept that financial burden associated with redundancy terms and conditions applicable in the Civil Service scheme. Will the Government underwrite the commitment on Second Reading, which was implied throughout Committee, to guarantee to the new ROF plc that they will


meet that commitment to existing employees to guarantee their existing redundancy rights, no matter what happens? That is fundamental, and we regard it as being of the utmost importance. The greatest concern was expressed on pensions and the pension rights of employees in the new organisation. The Opposition alleged, and the trade unions representing the industrial and non-industrial employees of the new ROF plc claimed, that the employees would suffer positive detriment under the new pension scheme. We were told, decisively and continually, that that was not the case. The Government started to wriggle, to welsh on their commitment, to pull out and to behave in a deceitful manner.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said in Committee on superannuation:
We propose in the new pensions scheme, which is specifically designed for existing employees, to continue full indexation of pensions in line with the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 on the same basis provided for by the principal Civil Service pension scheme." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 March 1984; c. 526.]
On 22 March, the Under-Secretary of State was speaking again when I interrupted him, and said:
Is there or is there not a ceiling on what will happen—that is, will it be fully index-linked or will it be a limited indexing?
The Under-Secretary replied:
Looking back to what I said at the earlier sitting of the Committee, I said it would be fully index-linked, and, therefore, I stand by that." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 22 March 1984; c. 583–4.]
We did not believe him, because the civil servants were saying different things to the trade unions in negotiations, and the Ministry was saying different things about how it would fund the new trust deed that would meet the interests of employees in the new ROF.
Raising the matter with the Under-Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), said:
At the moment the members of ROFs have a guarantee that whatever the rate of inflation under the Government legislation they will be compensated fully. If inflation rises to 10 per cent., those on retirement pensions will get 10 per cent. Can the Minister tell me that that will automatically happen under the new regime, or is it a fact that if contributions have to be increased above 11 per cent, it will be at the discretion of the company?
That is the provision in the trust deed. The Minister replied:
Yes, that is the difference. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that although indexation is provided for under current legislation, in the event of inflation getting into banana republic proportions one cannot envisage a situation in which the current legislation would be allowed to remain on the statute book.
My right hon. Friend said:
That is a bogus point." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 29 March 1984; c. 650.]
The Government started to wriggle in respect of the undertaking that they had given. From the start, the members of the ROFs felt they had been promised complete protection of their interests in redundancy schemes and pensions, interests that were lost to them later.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
There is a very thin possibility, or caveat, that there would not be total indexing." — [Official Repot, Standing Committee D, 2 April 1984; c. 656.]
We know that there will not be total indexing.
We want to know from the Minister why he has deliberately misled the members of the ROFs by suggesting that their pensions would be guaranteed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not accuse the Minister of deliberate misleading.

Mr. McNamara: I did not intend to accuse—-

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman said "deliberately misled". That is the point about which I was concerned.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister gave that impression —I am sure that he was not deliberately misleading—to the Committee and to all the employees of the ROFs, who believed that there would be full indexation. That is what he attempted to do consistently. On every occasion that the departmental team went to the factories, it said this repeatedly. On every occasion that my right hon. Friend and I and our colleagues in the trade unions asked whether this was guaranteed, the answer was yes. But the Government are not doing that. They are giving 6 per cent. to meet what would have been the wages complement, arid they will give another percentage up to a maximum of 17 per cent., including the wages element. If it goes above that, there will not be full indexation. Questions can be raised as to whether that percentage is a proper funding for the scheme, but I do not know that we would wish to go into that kind of argument now. However, I do know that the Government and the Ministry are not accepting the responsibilities of the undertaking that they gave to the unions and to the employees.
Although it may not be deliberately misleading, a letter of 24 April, signed by the Minister of State, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burney (Mr. Pike) states:
In addition the Transferred Scheme will provide benefits that are fully indexed-linked.
He did not say partially index-linked, or linked only up to 17 per cent., but fully index-linked. The Government are now pulling back from their precise commitment.
We have tabled the clause to enable the Government, if they do not believe us and the unions when we say that this will be detrimental to the employees, to go to the Government Actuary, and to have a proper appraisal.
I refer next to clause 13 of the trust deed which was sent to members of the Committee. One rather strange clause says:
The Employer may at any time terminate the liability of the Employer under the Scheme by giving notice in writing to the Trustees indicating its reasons. Upon receipt of such notice the liability of the Employer shall be terminated except in respect of payments due on or before the date of such notice.
A situation is being created in which the new ROF plc, as employer, can chicken out from its direct responsibilities, if it so wishes. That is surely detrimental to the employees, however one looks at the matters affecting the ROFs.
I refer next to the undertaking given by the Minister of State for Information Technology at the time that the Telecommunications Bill was debated on Report. He said—and I paraphrase—that existing pension obligations would be fully honoured, and that even if British Telecom went out of business the liability would go to the Secretary of State.
I ask the Minister whether he will give the same undertaking that, if the ROF plc, any of its successors or any of its hived-off companies go out of business, the Secretary of State will pick up the tab for the present pensions obligations. If he will do that, it will help to alleviate the fears of some Opposition Members, and of the present employees of the ROFs.
A strange argument was put forward by the Minister as to why the benefits of the 1971 Act and full index linking


should not be covered in the Bill. He said that if things got out of hand, the Government would have to chicken out of all their commitments to the public service and alter the legislation if necessary. However, he said that we would be safe with the trust deed. That is nonsense, and the Minister knows it. A trust deed is just as susceptible to legislation as an Act. It is ridiculous to suggest that one will stand where another will not. The Minister should realise that and should ensure that whatever happens the Government will underwrite any schemes that apply to current ROF employees. That is no less than the Government promised during discussion of the Telecommunications Bill.
Although I have tried to be as brief as possible, I hope that I have shown how the Government have wriggled and twisted, thinking that people could not see the difference between the two sets of documents. In doing so, they have let down both the employees and themselves. They gave an undertaking and commitment, and they should be prepared to keep it. No matter how much wriggling they may do about 16, 17 or 18 per cent. or what strange phrases they may use in debate—such as the comment about banana republics—Ministers gave a commitment which they have not honoured. We expect it to be honoured, and we expect them to give proper copper-bottomed guarantees now on the question of redundancy payments. If the firm cannot guarantee them the Treasury should do. We hope that the Government will give the same undertaking on the trust document as was given to British Telecom's employees.

Mr. Bowen-Wells: I share many of the misgivings expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee that discussed the Bill, so I am not aware of the details of the argument that he put. However, there is no doubt that employees at all levels of the ROFs are exceedingly worried and concerned about the copper-bottomed nature of the undertakings given by Ministers on pensions and redundancy payments. The commitment on pensions has been given at a time when the Government still own the ROFs. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, the Government should honour that commitment for all existing employees, and I trust that the Minister will give such an undertaking when he replies to the debate.
Several factors need to be examined with regard to redundancy payments. I have no reason to believe that the Royal Ordnance Factory plc will be unsuccessful, but during a period of change there will obviously be doubts and difficulties in the minds of existing employees. They may be worried that the new company will not be successful, and that raises the question of redundancies. The Government are under an obligation to make clear to those employees that the redundancy payments in the new company will be the same as those that existed under the old company.
I do not for one minute believe that such undertakings should apply to new employees of the new company. They should have totally different schemes of remuneration and conditions of service. However, other problems face the existing employees. The ROFs are to be reorganised into several different divisions, and that means the redeploy-

ment of those in very senior positions. They will have family commitments, mortgages, and so on. At a very difficult time in their personal circumstances they may have to move to other areas of the country. If they now work in London, they will suffer a reduction in their salaries, because they will no longer enjoy London weighting. Of course, they may enjoy a much higher standard of living as a result of moving, because of the lower cost of living there, but in cash terms they will be worse off. They may not be able to move house and may have to travel from London to the new location. They may even have to stay there during the week and return home at the weekend because of their commitments to their children's education, and so on.
No undertaking has been given by the management, the Treasury or Ministers that those who have to move will be fully compensated by the new company. Thus those people are being asked to make a very difficult decision right now as to whether to join the new company or to move to the Civil Service under the preference scheme. However, there is some doubt as to how many people the Civil Service can employ when the company is privatised, so those involved do not know whether they will be taken on. In addition, because they have asked to stay in the Civil Service, they may sacrifice the possibility of preferment within the new company. Accordingly, they are frightened to do that. They are being asked to make such choices long before the facts on how they will be affected by their new terms and conditions have been made clear to them, and so they are unable to make any rational choice.
Furthermore, people have to make such choices although they cannot get in to see the management, which could give them the answers to their questions. The Minister kindly facilitated my seeing the chairman-designate of the new company, who said that he was hamstrung. He said that he could not give undertakings or make clear to each employee what his pension entitlement was, whether there would be any compensation for moving, or whether any redundancy money would be available if they had opted for the Civil Service, but were not taken on and so made redundant.
I understand that in those circumstances people may lose their entire pension rights, built up, say, over 40 years, their redundancy money, and may find themselves out on the street, looking for a job at 50, without any compensation for having been employed by the ROFs. That is not the way to handle people, and it is not the way that anyone should try to handle them. We would be highly critical of any private company or employer that behaved in that way. In my view, this matter has been conducted insensitively and without enough forethought. I hope that the Minister can reassure the House and the employees, and so ensure that the new company retains its best employees to give it the best chance of making money and expanding its activities in the private sector.

Mr. Michael Foot: I understand that there is a strong desire to compress this debate, and I fully understand that. However, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in strongly urging the Government to accept the new clause. Some of my constituents are among those who have been treated as insensitively as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said. The ROF at


Glascoed has had a fine record for many years of decent industrial relations. Yet all that is being disturbed by the Government's proposals.
We on these Benches are, of course, opposed—as most of those at Glascoed and in the ROFs are—to the Government's general proposition. But if they are determined to go ahead with it, it is all the more necessary that they should protect the redundancy and pension rights of those who have given long service to those factories. That is the very least that could be demanded, but it is not what the Government have done. Even at this late stage, they could try to remedy the situation, and could lessen the sense of distress that prevails by accepting the new clause. I urge the Government to say "Done!". Why do they not accept the new clause and determine to carry it into operation? If any part of it is badly drafted, that can be dealt with.
I urge the Government to deal with the unrest that they have created. They should accept the clause and introduce some fairness into the way in which they deal with the people who work in the ordnance factories.

Mr. George Walden: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but in my constituency there is a small but excellent establishment at Westcott. I support the Government's privatisation policy, not out of dogmatism, but because I believe that it will give the people who work in my constituency a more secure and promising future in the long term. However, if the Government wish to edge people out into the crisp, cold climate of commercialism they should give them some warm clothes to put on.
It would he wrong to hide the fact that nearly all the people to whom I have spoken at the establishment in my constituency are worried on one score or another. They are worried that the whole organisation will be sold off in bits. They are worried about whether the funding for research will continue during the interim before privatisation.
The workers are also worried about pensions and terms of redundancy. The Government have a duty to be as generous as possible on pensions and redundancy terms, but I do not believe in the bottomless pit theory and I doubt whether many people who work in the ROF establishments believe in it.
Some of the employees at Westcott have asked me about what will happen if they opt for the second pension scheme and whether that will make them new entrants in the privatised firm. They wonder whether their redundancy terms will then automatically be based on the new entrant qualification. They believe that if that happened a redundancy payment could, for example, be reduced from £26,000 to £3,000. That is a drastic reduction. I should like clarification and the Minister's assurance that he will do his best to secure the most generous terms possible within the realms of financial prudence. The new company must not be overloaded with unrealistic obligations.

Mr. Leo Abse: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I have heard about anxieties among workers at the Glascoed factory. At first I thought that I could reassure the workers after what appeared to be unequivocal comments by the Minister. However, confusion and alarm have been caused by contradictory statements made since.
In an endeavour to maintain industrial peace, some of us have tried to allay fears. The Government, resiling from

that position, have placed some hon. Members in an impossible position. Repugnant as we find the whole privatisation scheme, some of us feel that we have a duty and obligation to allay anxieties, if there are well founded reasons to allay them, rather than to incite the workers. Like all those who work in the ordnance units, we feel let down. Ministers have an obligation to weigh their words carefully. When new problems occur or new thoughts arise Ministers must take responsibility for making adjustments instead of tearing up obligations which they have entered into publicly.
6.45 pm
In south Wales the problem is not academic. The unemployment figures are appalling. People are sometimes unemployed for years. The threat of redundancy has a special meaning not known in areas with full employment. The threat of redundancy is bound to cause an enormous amount of anxiety. The threat of redundancy without adequate payment subverts the whole family life of a constituency. It is not good enough for the Government to treat people almost as chattels by transferring them from one factory to another and telling them that they have little alternative but to enter into the new agreements.

Mr. Ashdown: It is medieval.

Mr. Abse: In a sense it is medieval. The Government seem to have decided that they will take that course and throw people around as if they are mere assets of a unit. That is irresponsible behaviour. How can one expect people to feel confident that all will be well when we see such a miserable picture of moving one foot forward and one foot back. How can the Government expect the morale of a company to be maintained?
How can the Government expect people who decide to purchase the units to pay the price which the Government want them to pay when they know that they are purchasing a disaffected, disgruntled and demoralised work force? That is what is happening.
The Government must have second thoughts. We should be able to say to the workers that they need have no fears. The Government response is that it is unlikely that some of the awful events imagined will occur. They say that it is unlikely that the fear that the pension schemes cannot be index-linked will be realised. They say that that is highly improbable. If it is so improbable, why are the Government not prepared to underwrite the commitment contained in the new clause?
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is entitled to a satisfactory answer about the details of redundancy and pension terms. The workers at Glascoed and elsewhere fear that rationalisation will take place as a result of the scheme. Not only will the management have to move from one area to another, with all the problems that that will bring, but the men will be expected to move. The men will not be able to move. They will not be able to sell their houses because the market is clogged in areas of high unemployment. They will have no alternative. Rationalisation will mean that hundreds may become redundant. They are talking about the end, and perhaps the extinguishing of their working lives. There is no alternative work and their houses will be unsaleable.
I hope that the Minister will behave as a responsible employer. I hope that in this crazy, ideological urge to break up all the units there will be at least some element


of common sense and a recognition of the normal obligations of any reasonable employer to employees. Up to now that obligation has not been acknowledged. I hope that it will be later today.

Mr. Ashdown: I support the new clause. It is, as most hon. Members will agree, somewhat inelegantly drafted, as was the previous new clause, but at least this one makes some sense. The new clause has two qualities—first, no detriment, and, secondly, an objective system of judging that detriment. The Minister must admit that he has frequently and consistently conceded the concept of no detriment. He did so on Second Reading, repeatedly in Committee and in certain documents. The Minister has sought, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, unsuccessfully to reassure the work force at the royal ordnance factories by the concept of no detriment. The Minister is widely regarded as an honourable man who means what he says. On this issue he means that there shall be no detriment. I suggest that he cannot question that element of the new clause, and I am sure that he will not seek to do so. He must concede that point.
The Minister's opposition to the amendment must be on the ground that it seeks to establish a more objective system of judging the question whether detriment will be caused than what is in the Minister's or the Government's mind's eye. As an honourable man, the Minister will no doubt wish his undertaking about no detriment to stand even after he leaves his present exalted position and perhaps passes to an even more exalted one or after another party comes to power. I ask him to recognise that he has nothing to fear by allowing the question of no detriment to be judged objectively rather than in the eyes of the Government of the day. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that not just this Government but any Government face the irresistible temptation to make loose statements, such as on detriment, to their advantage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the element in the new clause providing a degree of objectivity about the judgment of no detriment places the possibility in his hands of establishing a precedent which, in the Government's privatisation programme, will be deeply reassuring to other work forces that the Government seek to privatise.
The new clause honours the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric, and he has nothing to fear from it. I hope that, in those circumstances, he will accept it.

Mr. Pike: I, too, recognise the constraints of time and shall keep my remarks to a minimum. I regret that it is necessary to speak in support of a new clause such as this which has had to be moved at this stage. After more than 20 sittings in Committee we are still not guaranteed that no detriment in conditions of service and employment will be suffered by employees of the royal ordnance factories after privatisation. If the Government genuinely wish to meet the undertaking they gave on many occasions, they would, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said, be prepared to accept the new clause.
The employees of the royal ordnance factories are opposed to privatisation and they have clearly shown their view. It is, of course, purely because of Government dogma and for political reasons that the factories are to be

privatised. The profitability, improvements in productivity and exports of the royal ordnance factories show that there is no good reason to remove the factories from the public sector. They have an excellent record of service to this country and should continue in the public sector. The income that the Government will receive from the sale of those factories will be extremely low, and, therefore, no detriment should be caused to the employees. We hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will give that assurance by accepting the new clause.
Differing answers were given in Committee on the especially difficult and complex matter of pensions. Various letters were written on the subject. During the 20th sitting of the Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said:
The assessment by the actuaries is that in normal circumstances those three different sources of revenue"—
income from the investments, the employer and the employees—
will ensure that there is enough money in the fund to meet the liabilities — the liability to pay in the first place and the liability to index-link that payment. Understandably, the Opposition queried what I mean by 'normal circumstances' . I can best explain that by saying that we and the actuaries believe that circumstances when inflation is running in the long term—I emphasise that-at say, 25 per cent., 35 per cent. or 50 per cent. a year, would not be normal." — [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 3 April 1984; c. 656.]
I am sure that every hon. Member would agree that inflation at those levels, even in a short period, would not be normal, and it would certainly not be normal in the long term. The Government, whichever party were in office, would be forced to take action because we would be facing a crisis. Not only the royal ordnance factories, but the Civil Service, local government and other areas where pensions are index-linked would be unable to meet that commitment. The new clause could be accepted because I am sure that, in all reasonable and foreseeable circumstances, the Government would genuinely wish to follow that commitment, and we welcome that approach.

Mr. Pattie: I listened carefully to the speeches, and I recognise fully the strength of feeling displayed on both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) raised detailed questions about moving allowances and such matters, and I shall see what I can do if he cares to make individual reference to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made a specific point, and I realise that the difficulty of PERME employees differs from the difficulties of other royal ordnance factory employees. I assure the House that the entitlement of existing employees to redundancy benefits and compensation will not be affected if they choose—they have the option—to join the new entrants pension scheme as opposed to the transferee scheme. In this sense there is no linkage between pensions and redundancy benefits, and I hope that my hon. Friend will convey that point to his constituents.
We have stated many times that it has always been our intention that employees will not suffer detriment by reason of the transfer. Terms and conditions of employment, other than pensions, will be the same immediately following the transfers as they were immediately before it. This is secured, not by the Bill, but by the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—TUPE 81. These regulations effectively continue the contract of


employment from the one employment to the other, as though the contract had been made with the new employer and not with the old one. In this respect, therefore, there cannot possibly be any detriment. It could be argued that there will be some marginal improvement, because some of the more restrictive aspects of employment within the Civil Service will not apply to employment in a private company.
Pension schemes, however, do not come within the 1981 regulations, and transferring employees will have to leave the principal Civil Service pension scheme and join a new scheme to be set up by the company. Some worry has, understandably, been expressed concerning the provisions of the new pension scheme and about redundancy compensation. The Government have given an unequivocal commitment that redundancy benefits payable by the company will be exactly the same as those that would have been paid by the PCSPS. It follows that there will be no detriment in respect of redundancy benefits.
The benefits to be paid under this pension scheme will be equal to those payable under the PCSPS, and will be index-linked in line with PCSPS benefits. The pension scheme has been a focus of concern about detriment. The trade unions representing those employees to be transferred have been given all the essential details of the new pension scheme, and discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the unions are going on now with a view to agreeing the company's proposals. I saw some of the unions this morning and I am to see the others next Tuesday. It is our intention and expectation that the discussions will result in an agreement that is satisfactory to all parties.
7 pm
The Opposition queried in Committee what the Government said about index linking. The Government explained fully how the company scheme, including index linking, will work. The pension scheme has been carefully costed under independent actuarial advice. We are satisfied that it is within the company's ability to maintain the contributions necessary to provide for the index-linked benefits. In all foreseeable circumstances there will be no problem for the company in meeting its commitment. We do not believe, therefore, that the new scheme will be detrimental in any way to transferring employees.
The clause that we are being asked to accept would require the Government Actuary to consider individually each of the 20,000 or so transferring employees and to make his calculations according to their individual circumstances. That would be an impossible task, and even if it could be carried out the Actuary would not be able to say for certain that any detriment would arise.
In the Government's view, the clause is unworkable as it stands. Rather than attempting to devise some machinery for the assessment of a hypothetical situation, it would be better to leave the issues to the discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the trade unions, which are now in progress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already confirmed to the unions that if they can establish detriment in the pension scheme there will be adjustments to remove it. If it proves impossible for the Department and the unions to reach a satisfactory accommodation, there is machinery for assessing issues of this sort, in the form of industrial tribunals.
The clause would add nothing useful to the Bill It could not assist the resolution of the delicate matters that are involved or help to reassure the transferring employee. It is the considered opinion of the actuaries who have advised the Government that the limits of contribution which have been set will cover all foreseeable circumstances based on known experience. We are convinced, therefore, that there is no detriment. The clause is unnecessary and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister's reply was thoroughly
unsatisfactory, especially on index linking. If the scheme covers all foreseeable circumstances, there is no reason why the new clause should not become part of the Bill and be enacted. If the Government do not like the wording of the new clause and wish to introduce a similar clause in another place, we shall accept that. They are unlikely to do that, and so we must press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second t ime:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 193.

Division No. 305]
[7.02 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Alton, David
Janner, Hon Greville


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ashdown, Paddy
Kennedy, Charles


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Kirkwood, Archibald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lamond, James


Barnett, Guy
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barron, Kevin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bell, Stuart
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McCartney, Hugh


Bermingham, Gerald
McCrea, Rev William


Blair, Anthony
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Maclennan, Robert


Caborn, Richard
McNamara, Kevin


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Michie, William


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbett, Robin
Nellist, David


Craigen, J. M.
O'Brien, William


Crowther, Stan
Park, George


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Parry, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Patchett, Terry


Deakins, Eric
Penhaligon, David


Dormand, Jack
Pike, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Prescott, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Randall, Stuart


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Redmond, M.


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fatchett, Derek
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fisher, Mark
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rooker, J. W.


Forrester, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Derek
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Snape, Peter


George, Bruce
Soley, Clive


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Straw, Jack


Hardy, Peter
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wareing, Robert


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wilson, Gordon


Home Robertson, John
Winnick, David


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Woodall, Alec






Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Allen McKay and



Mr. Don Dixon.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Hunter, Andrew


Alexander, Richard
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Arnold, Tom
Jessel, Toby


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Batiste, Spencer
Key, Robert


Beggs, Roy
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lang, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lawler, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lester, Jim


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lightbown, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Lilley, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lord, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas


Cash, William
McCrindle, Robert


Chapman, Sydney
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Chope, Christopher
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Cope, John
Maclean, David John


Couchman, James
Major, John


Crouch, David
Malins, Humfrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Malone, Gerald


Eggar, Tim
Maples, John


Emery, Sir Peter
Mates, Michael


Evennett, David
Mather, Carol


Fallon, Michael
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mellor, David


Forman, Nigel
Merchant, Piers


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Forth, Eric
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Freeman, Roger
Montgomery, Fergus


Gale, Roger
Moore, John


Galley, Roy
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Murphy, Christopher


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neale, Gerrard


Gow, Ian
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry
Nelson, Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Neubert, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Onslow, Cranley


Gummer, John Selwyn
Ottaway, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Harris, David
Parris, Matthew


Harvey, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Haselhurst, Alan
Pollock, Alexander


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Porter, Barry


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawksley, Warren
Powley, John


Hayes, J.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hayhoe, Barney
Price, Sir David


Hayward, Robert
Proctor, K. Harvey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Raffan, Keith


Heddle, John
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Henderson, Barry
Rhodes James, Robert


Hickmet, Richard
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hill, James
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hind, Kenneth
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hirst, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rowe, Andrew


Holt, Richard
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hooson, Tom
Ryder, Richard


Hordern, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sims, Roger





Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speed, Keith
Walden, George


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Watson, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitfield, John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Raymond


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wiggin, Jerry


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wilkinson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Terlezki, Stefan
Wood, Timothy


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly negatived

Clause 1

TRANSFER SCHEMES

Mr. Ashdown: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9 after 'companies,' insert
'whose boards of directors shall in every case include 2 employees of the Royal Ordnance Factories elected yearly by all paid employees.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8 in clause 5, page 5, line 28, at end insert
'and unless all employees who have worked in Royal Ordnance Factories throughout the two previous years have been given an opportunity to purchase shares at a preferential rate.'.

Mr. Ashdown: The Committee was under no illusion that I and my party were totally opposed to the concept of privatisation as well as to the draft of the Bill. It is our concern, none the less, to ensure that, while the Government press ahead, we should create the most healthy organisation, with the best chance of success, and able to take its place in the market effectively and efficiently. That would benefit the members of those firms as well as the strength of our defence industries and the vital services which the ROFs provide to our defence mechanism.
It is well known that the Liberal party has long believed profoundly that one of the problems with the armaments industry in Britain lies in the fact that industry, like politics in the House, as characterised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who intervenes from a sedentary position—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not mind being challenged when I am speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have been sitting here quietly.

Mr. Ashdown: If that is so, it is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has kept silent while I have been speaking.
That alliance has long believed that British industry is weaker and less effective because, like the House and British politics in general, it is founded on class conflict and confrontation. We have long believed that the two significant reforms of industrial democracy and profit
sharing, which we could introduce, are vital to overcome that problem and to lay a successful foundation for the industry.
I hear the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) speaking from a sedentary position. I must tell the House that a few moments ago he asked me to be brief because he wanted to dine, which was more important than taking part in the debate. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to be brief, he should keep a little quieter.
We have long believed that those two key reforms to ensure participation in industrial democracy and in profit sharing are vital for a firm and strong industrial base for Britain. That applies to the economy as a whole as much as to the privatised royal ordnance factories, however much we might oppose that move.
7.15 pm
Amendment No. 1 relates to industrial democracy, and amendment No. 8 deals with share ownership. I shall deal with them in the order in which they stand. We debated industrial democracy in Committee, when I found myself voting in support of a Labour amendment. I repeat now that our difference with the Labour party lies in the fact that it seem to believe that only the trade union movement is entitled to rights of representation on a board of directors. We stood against Labour Members when the Bullock report on industrial democracy was produced. We believe that all those who work in a company have a right to participate in the decisions that control their destiny, in which they are involved and upon which depend their whole livelihoods.
The amendment seeks to allow the work force in the new form of royal ordnance factory to elect two worker-directors on to the board of directors controlling the organisation. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said in Committee that he supported that concept.
He said:
If workers are going to have 10 per cent. of the shares, why not let them have a representative on the board? … Why should not the employees be in the same position as anybody else who is going to sit on the board. They have great experience in this matter; they have something to contribute; they have shown great loyalty to the organisation, and they will continue to do so; even though they might object privately to privatisation they will show great loyalty, and their loyalty could be rewarded by putting two employees on the board. They can make a contribution at that level. I would like to see that." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 February 1984; c. 200–1.]
I could scarcely make a more eloquent case for the amendment.

Mr. David Winnick: Yes, the hon. Gentleman could.

Mr. Ashdown: Perhaps I could, come to think of it. Unhappily, whatever glowing support the right hon. Member for Llanelli has for the concept, he avoids speaking out alone, or almost alone, in the Labour party, for others express different views. I note that—I was going to say the hon. Member for the NUM — Mr. Arthur Scargill, writing in a pamphlet called "The Myth of Workers Control", published in April, said that
workers' control under capitalism is a contradiction in terms … only achieved through the process of collective bargaining and class conflict … workers on boards of directors inevitably become part of the institution of the board room" —
—-I ask Labour Members to take particular account of this statement—
in much the same way that Labour politicians often become 'constitutionalised' in capitalist parliamentary institutions.

I hope that that statement sends a shiver down the right hon. Gentleman's spine as he worries about the possibility of Mr. Scargill and his hordes disagreeing with him and instituting some form of re-selection.
It is time that Labour Members made their position on this clear. Do they honour the rhetoric of the right hon. Member for Llanelli in support of worker democracy and the election of people to represent the work force in the board rooms of the royal ordnance factories? I suspect that of the few hon. Members here, still fewer will support the amendment because, once again, the call of the train home has proved stronger than the call to test their principles. I believe that the voting figures will show a far greater proportion of the alliance parties to be present than Members of any other party.
At the eighth sitting of the Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was somewhat disparaging, saying that the boards must pull together and suggesting that worker representation would somehow be divisive. He completely ignored the fact that the industrial confrontation which afflicts Britain, destroying competitiveness and efficiency, has been dealt with in West Germany and other European nations by precisely this means.
When it suits them, of course, the Government trumpet about worker democracy. They say that they have gone some way along the lines proposed in the Vredeling initiative by requiring companies over a certain size to report on employee involvement and participation. On 1 May the Secretary of State for Employment actually made a virtue out of the Government's proposals and their espousal of the concept of the employee participation. I see the hon. Member for Crawley looking at his watch again. If he will keep a little quieter, we may get through this a little more rapidly.
The Secretary of State for Employment said that
we have already legislated in one respect of the Vredeling directive in requiring every company—this requirement is not restricted to companies over a certain size—to publish in its report and accounts its activity and involvement in communication. That requirement was placed in the 1982 Act. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will be monitoring extremely carefully all company reports and accounts to ascertain how the involvement is being pursued. — [Official Report, 1 May 1984; Vol. 59, c. 182.]
The Government made a virtue of their involvement with that initiative, omitting to mention that it was the result of a defeat in the House of Lords on an amendment put down by noble Lords who supported the Liberal party and the SDP. It was as a direct result of that defeat that the Government took the first steps towards industrial democracy.
I commend to the Minister the following words, spoken in this House on 21 January 1974:
It is time that we on the Government side did some bridge building by acknowledging that capitalism, if it is to survive, must undergo some major changes … we cannot persist with the notion that the man who has worked for a company for perhaps 20 years, whose savings are in the pension fund, who has built his life around the factory at the end of the road, whose chances of finding another employer are probably thin, and who has served his company faithfully, is not a member of that company, while the man who, without seeing or knowing the company or knowing the product, but thinking that it might be good for a take-over bid, rings his broker and buys some shares, is a member of the company.
That cannot be right. If it ever was right, it cannot be right now … I believe that the employees have a right to representation on the board and at the annual general meeting of the company. They have a right to that …


The gulf between managers, employees and owners has to be closed."—[Official Report, 21 January 1974; Vol. 867, c. 1278–79.]
Those were powerful words indeed, spoken in the debate in 1974 by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I can put it no more clearly myself. I hope that the Minister today will follow the rhetoric of his right hon. Friend and accept that initiatives of this kind can do much to build a bridge between one side of industry and the other and to lay the basis for a decent and proper organisation for the new royal ordnance factories so as to ensure their success and provide for appropriate industrial relations.

Mr. Skinner: In talking about following one's own rhetoric and practising what one preaches, will the hon. Gentleman call upon those Liberal and Social Democrat Members who between them have 15 directorships and consultancies to consider whether they should be serving on boards and picking up brass when the policies on worker democracy which he describes are not being carried out? Should they not resign?

Mr. Ashdown: I fully recognise the mischievous intent behind that intervention. The point at issue is simply this. No doubt they will argue their Liberal principles on those boards and seek to bring about precisely this kind of worker democracy. They may not be able to carry the day, but I know of no Liberal Member of Parliament, past or present, who did not both espouse these beliefs and seek to put them into operation whenever possible.

Mr. Skinner: Cyril Smith.

Mr. Ashdown: The second key element in the amendment is share ownership.

Mr. Skinner: Richard Wainwright.

Mr. Ashdown: I am sure the House recognises that it is a long-held Liberal belief that the ownership of shares in a firm is a vital mechanism for ensuring proper industrial development and decent industrial relations.

Mr. Skinner: Ian Wrigglesworth.

Mr. Ashdown: As the right hon. Member for Llanelli said, we introduced the employee share ownership scheme into the 1978 Act. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that that was brought in by a Liberal initiative during the Lib-Lab pact, when he was a Minister of State at the Treasury.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli said:
It is only fair to say that the Labour Party is ambivalent about these schemes. I think they are beneficial, but I recognise that many of my hon. Friends have a different view … In 1978 we had a debate within the Labour Party, and there was general disagreement … The scheme was introduced, among other reasons, because of the so-called alliance at the time with the Liberal Party … It is clear that, had there not been a Lib-Lab pact, there would not have been this clause in the Finance Bill of 1978
We strongly share that view. He continued:
Unhappily, however, the Labour Party once again is divided on this issue. The Labour Party's position is not clear.
The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) said:
I am not sure who gained from it, but I do not believe it was the Labour Party."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 June 1980; c. 565–79.]

Mr. Skinner: They are all here in the register. Managing directors—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary interruptions are bad enough, but a running commentary is even worse. If the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) seeks to catch my eye, I shall see whether he can take part in the debate later.

Mr. Ashdown: I was seeking to ignore the hon. Gentleman's inteventions, as I hope is the practice of all hon. Members, because they are pretty worthless interruptions.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Skinner: It is all in the register.

Mr. Ashdown: What is the Labour party's view on this? The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who we are told is close to the Leader of the Opposition, has said:
My own suspicion is that we have gone far enough"—
in the 1978 Act—
and the clause is taking us too far.
The Labour party's Green Paper, "Capital and Equity", states:
Company-based schemes whether for profit sharing or for capital sharing, were found to be totally unacceptable as even a partial solution—they are, we believe, offensive to both trade unions and to Socialism.
Will the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) or any other Labour Member tell the House what is the Labour Party's position on this issue, and ensure that Labour Members' votes are cast accordingly and that they do not sit tight on the Benches when we vote.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party document to which he referred was written principally by hon. Members who crossed the Floor of the House to join the Liberal rabble?

Mr. Ashdown: I do not know whether that is true. One thing is sure, however, and that is that both Liberal and SDP Members firmly believe that these reforms are essential if we are to overcome the conflict and confrontation in British industry.
The Conservative party favours the idea of employee share ownership. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) is not present because, as is well known, he favours these proposals. In the debate on the Queen's Speech the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), said about the work of expanding share ownership:
We are determined to carry on with that work because it is what employees want and the results have been extremely encouraging." — [Official Report, 24 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 266.]
On 27 July 1983 I asked him what steps he had taken to continue the move towards share ownership. He replied:
We have not gone as far as he and I wish to, but we are moving firmly in the right direction." — [Official Report, 27 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 1176.]
Others hold the same view. The Institute of Directors believes that the concept has benefits for all. It published a document called "Share Ownership for Employees and Directors", in which it said:


It spreads personal holding of wealth, it links the growth of that wealth to company performance and it educates all who participate in the realities of business risk, capital and profits.
Is not that what the Minister wishes to see in the new royal ordnance factories? We hope that the Government's rhetoric on this matter will be carried through, and that the Bill will allow employees both to participate directly in the decisions made by firms and boards by having workers elected to the board of directors, and to purchase shares at a preferential rate before the shares are put on the market.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Gentleman will recall the many assurances that were given in Committee. It is the Conservative party's intention to encourage the widest possible share ownership. We should like a double commitment from a man, both of his time and skills, and of his savings, with which to buy shares. Would not the hon. Gentleman's amendment make more sense, and perhaps find more favour, if instead of saying "paid employees" it said "employee shareholders"?

Mr. Ashdown: I understand the hon. Gentleman's views. It is exclusively and peculiarly conservative to think that only those who have the money to purchase shares and own property should be elected. That concept went out in 1832. The hon. Gentleman suggests that only those who can purchase shares can be elected to the board of directors. That is nonsense. A person's livelihood is at stake whether he owns shares in the firm or not.
The Government must establish a precedent, which will be useful for other Bills that seek to privatise assets. They must make a firm commitment to give workers the right to preferential shares before the shares come on the market, and to be represented on the board of directors by direct election. That is what the amendment seeks to introduce into the Bill. I hope that Conservative Members will find something in these proposals to commend the amendment, and that the Minister will accept it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): The amendment was tabled by alliance Members, who clearly sympathise with the Labour party view of industrial democracy, under which worker-directors only can benefit the smooth and efficient running of a company. However, it is clear that they do not agree with the Labour party about the mechanism by which such worker representation on company boards should be achieved.
In Committee we debated a Labour party amendment, which sought to place on the new ROFs' boards two worker-directors who were to be nominated by the trade unions. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) took issue with that and preferred to see worker-directors being elected by their fellow employees. The amendment is worded to achieve that, and to allow for yearly elections.
Hon. Members may be more inclined to support this amendment because it is a more democratic means of advancing worker participation, but that is not the real point at issue. We must consider carefully whether it is suitable and appropriate for employees of a company to represent certain interests on a board where a number of interests related to the performance of a company are brought together.
There can be no objection to placing on the board a person with knowledge of the requirements and views of the employees and to making use of his expertise in the

service of the company. On the present ROF boards there is one director who started on the shop floor, and two others who started at the foot of the non-industrial, scientific ladder, who have worked their way through the system.
As employee representatives, worker-directors must be expected to have at heart what are, quite properly, the sectional interests of their fellow employees. It is not difficult to foresee instances where that may conflict with the company's interests. To appoint an individual as a company director is to give him moral and legal obligations under the provisions of company law. The prime duty of a director is to promote the interests of the whole company. It must be in the interests of employees to maintain full employment at the highest remuneration, whereas it is in the interests of the employer to manage his business in the most economically efficient way. It is not, therefore, hard to envisage circumstances in which there could be a conflict of interest.
The amendment is unacceptable. The boards will be constituted with the needs of the ROF organisation as a whole in mind, and will have the appropriate expertise and background committed fully to the company. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
I turn now to the question of employee shares and shareholdings. The Government believe in wider share ownership. If we assume privatisation by flotation, we shall encourage employee participation. The House must judge the Government by our record in that respect—on our privatisations of British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless, Associated British Ports and others. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, because otherwise we must oppose it.

Mr. David Alton: I am sorry that the Minister said that the Government will oppose the amendment. I hoped that they would accept it, in view of their often-repeated claim that they favour the encouragement of employee participation.
I was worried that the Minister said that the need was to take into account the views and feelings of the organisation. That is the difference between Liberal and SDP Members, and Conservative Members. We should like to see the views of the workers and of all those involved in an enterprise taken into account.
The Minister also said that we were supporting the Labour party view. When my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) moved the amendment, it became increasingly obvious that that was the last thing that we were doing. The Labour party is deeply divided on this issue, and there is no great support from Labour Members tonight. Many Opposition Members epitomise the continuing strife in British industry between the victors and the vanquished. They see everything in terms of capital versus labour, and say far too little about the need for workers and management to work together.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry set out his view in an article in The Guardian in September last year:
There is also evidence that too many companies are still not doing enough
to involve employees in the enterprise.
I am often amazed at the way in which decisions which affect a man's working life are taken with little concern for his feelings—indeed with little effort to discover if he could suggest a better way, and a more acceptable way to him, to achieve the company's objectives.


Liberals have traditionally been committed to involving workers far more in their enterprises, because they, due to their knowledge of the shop floor, know best about the solutions to a company's difficulties and know best about the way in which the company should be organised. As long ago as 1928 the Liberal Yellow Book stated:
The real purpose of profit-sharing … is to show that the worker is treated as a partner and that the division of the proceeds of industry is not a mystery concealed from him, but is based on known and established rules to which he is a party.
Eight years before that Mr. Asquith said that he looked to "a combination of workers" running their own enterprises.
The Liberal view on this has been well established for most of the past century. However, the Socialists have concentrated traditionally on worker control at the level of the entire economy rather than the individual work place, and it is that which separates us from the Labour party.
For industrial democracy Britain has become something of a backwater. In Sweden, for example, there are wage earner funds; in West Germany there has been an extension of workers' councils; in the United States employees stock ownership plans have taken off on a large scale; and in Yugoslavia there are many imaginative self-management schemes. In the previous three Conservative Budgets incentives have been given to some worker share schemes, and we recognise that, compared with the 30 schemes that operated in that way in 1979, now more than 550 companies are involved in such enterprises. However, in the United States about 6,000 companies have employees in stock ownership plans, and I should have thought that Britain would be making strides in that direction.
From this year companies with more than 250 workers must state in their reports how they have furthered employee involvement, and the Liberal party looks forward to seeing the outcome of those reports. We hope that there will be other opportunities, not just here tonight, to further the cause of employee involvement in enterprises, and employees being given a share of profits and a say in the running of their firms. For that reason, I am happy to support my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and we shall press both amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 171.

Division No. 306]
[7.42 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Maclennan, Robert


Ashdown, Paddy
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Penhaligon, David


Corbett, Robin
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)



Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Simon Hughes and


McCrea, Rev William
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Sir Bernard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Arnold, Tom
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baldry, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Beggs, Roy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Cash, William





Chapman, Sydney
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Chope, Christopher
Moore, John


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Murphy, Christopher


Cope, John
Needham, Richard


Couchman, James
Nelson, Anthony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Neubert, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Emery, Sir Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Evennett, David
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Forman, Nigel
Parris, Matthew


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Forth, Eric
Pollock, Alexander


Fox, Marcus
Powell, William (Corby)


Freeman, Roger
Powley, John


Gale, Roger
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Galley, Roy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Raffan, Keith


Gow, Ian
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Gregory, Conal
Rhodes James, Robert


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Ground, Patrick
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rowe, Andrew


Hanley, Jeremy
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Harris, David
Ryder, Richard


Harvey, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Haselhurst, Alan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hayes, J.
Sims, Roger


Hayhoe, Barney
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hayward, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Henderson, Barry
Speed, Keith


Hickmet, Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hill, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hind, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Hirst, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Holt, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hooson, Tom
Sumberg, David


Hordern, Peter
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Terlezki, Stefan


Hunt, John (Ravensboume)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Hunter, Andrew
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Thurnham, Peter


Key, Robert
Tracey, Richard


Lang, Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lawler, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lee, John (Pendle)
Waddington, David


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Lester, Jim
Walden, George


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Waller, Gary


Lightbown, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Watson, John


Lord, Michael
Watts, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


McCrindle, Robert
Wheeler, John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Whitfield, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Whitney, Raymond


Maclean, David John
Wiggin, Jerry


Major, John
Wilkinson, John


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Malone, Gerald
Winterton, Nicholas


Maples, John
Wolfson, Mark


Mather, Carol
Wood, Timothy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Yeo, Tim


Mellor, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Merchant, Piers



Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Moate, Roger
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

Question accordingly negatived

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'from' to end of line 3 and insert
'a successor company or from different successor companies to a company or to different companies (whether or not it or any of them is a successor company immediately before the coming into force of the scheme)'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 35, after 'taken', insert
', on the date the asset or liability is so transferred,'.

No. 4, in page 3, line 31, leave out '(a)'.—[Mr. Pattie.]

Clause 5

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT

Amendment proposed, No. 8, in page 5, line 28, at end
insert
'and unless all employees who have worked in Royal Ordnance Factories throughout the two previous years have been given an opportunity to purchase shares at a preferential rate.'.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 8, Noes 162.

Division No. 307]
[7.53 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Penhaligon, David


Ashdown, Paddy
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale



Freud, Clement
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCrea, Rev William
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Alexander, Richard
Hanley, Jeremy


Alison, Rt Mon Michael
Harris, David


Arnold, Tom
Harvey, Robert


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Baldry, Anthony
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Beggs, Roy
Hayes, J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayhoe, Barney


Bottomley, Peter
Hayward, Robert


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Henderson, Barry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hickmet, Richard


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hill, James


Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Budgen, Nick
Hirst, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Holt, Richard


Cash, William
Hooson, Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Couchman, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Eggar, Tim
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Key, Robert


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawler, Geoffrey


Forman, Nigel
Lee, John (Pendle)


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Freeman, Roger
Lightbown, David


Gale, Roger
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Galley, Roy
Lord, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lyell, Nicholas


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McCrindle, Robert


Gow, Ian
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gregory, Conal
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maclean, David John


Ground, Patrick
Major, John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Malins, Humfrey





Malone, Gerald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Moate, Roger
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Moore, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Murphy, Christopher
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Terlezki, Stefan


Needham, Richard
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Parris, Matthew
Waddington, David


Pattie, Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pollock, Alexander
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powley, John
Watson, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Watts, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Raffan, Keith
Wheeler, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Whitfield, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wilkinson, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')



Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 6, line 3, leave out '(a)'.—[Mr. Lee.]

Clause 7

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT LIMIT

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 8, line 7, leave out '(a)' .—[Mr. Lee.]

New Schedule

SPECIAL CONSTABLES

'1. — (1) Section 3 of the Special Constables Act 1923 (appointment of persons nominated by Defence Council to be special constables in certain places, in particular in and within 15 miles of premises in possession or under control of Defence Council) shall have effect as if all premises falling within subparagraph (2) were premises under the control of the Defence Council.

(2) The premises are those in Great Britain which fulfil the following conditions:—
(a) they constitute or fall within property, rights or liabilities which have at some time been the subject of a transfer by virtue of a provision made under section 1(1)(a),
(b) they are in the occupation or under the control of a successor company (whether or not they fall within property, rights or liabilities vested in the company by virtue of a scheme), and
(c) they are used for the purposes of, or for purposes which include, the making or development of ordnance.

2.—(1) For the purposes of section 2 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1860 (which limits the use of the powers of special constables to property of the Crown in certain circumstances) property of a successor company shall be deemed to be property of the Crown.

(2) For the purposes of sub—paragraph (1), property of a successor company includes—
(a) property which (though not owned by it) is in its possession or under its control and property which has been unlawfully removed from its possession or control;
(b) property whether or not acquired by the company under a scheme.

3. — (1) A person authorised under the enactments mentioned in this Schedule to be a special constable in premises falling within paragraph 1(2) may, within the limits for which he is constable, stop, search and detain any vessel, boat or vehicle in or on which there is reason to suspect that there may be found a successor company's goods stolen or unlawfully obtained, or any person reasonably suspected of having or conveying in any manner a successor company's goods stolen or unlawfully obtained.

(2) References in sub-paragraph (1) to a successor company's goods are to goods belonging to it or in its possession (whether or not acquired by it under a scheme).

4. If immediately before premises fall within paragraph 1(2) a person who was appointed to be a special constable on the Defence Council's nomination has functions under the enactments mentioned in this Schedule, he shall without being further appointed or sworn in have those functions within premises and limits for which special constables may be appointed by virtue of this Schedule.

5. In this Schedule "successor company" means a company in which any property, right or liability has vested by virtue of a provision made under section 1(1).'—[Mr. Lee.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Amendments made: No. 13, in line 6, leave out from
'liabilities' to first 'and' in line 9 and insert
'to or from those and certain other companies; to make provision about their finances'.

No. 14, in line 12, after 'Factories;', insert
'to make provision about the powers of special constables in consequence of transfers;'.—[Mr. Lee.]

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Adjournment (Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday 25th May do adjourn until Monday 4th June.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. Jack Ashley: This evening provides an opportunity to raise important local, national and international issues. I wish to deal with issues of crucial importance to Stoke-on-Trent.
The House should not rise for the spring Adjournment until we have discussed the way in which the Government are discriminating unfairly against Stoke-on-Trent, their failure to deal with the city's special problems, and the need for urgent action. On 7 March the city presented the Secretary of State for the Environment with a powerful case for inner area status. It was warmly praised by the Minister of State, but he gave a negative answer. That was wholly unacceptable to Stoke-on-Trent.
Stoke-on-Trent has a stronger case for designation for inner area status than many of those areas currently being assisted. Such areas are assisted mainly on the basis of signs of deprivation. The extent of the problems facing Stoke-on-Trent, on calculations based on the Department's use of census information, places the city at the top of the list of designated districts — yet it is excluded. That is outrageous discrimination.
Of 48 designated districts, Stoke-on-Trent has the 13th highest rate of households lacking basic amenities. It has the same unlucky number and position for mortality. Compared with towns and cities in other regions, Stoke-on-Trent has greater urban deprivation than virtually any of the designated authorities in the north, Yorkshire, Humberside and the north-west.
None of those outrageous facts is disputed by the Government. They cannot dispute them because we have our facts right about their indefensible discrimination. The Government appear to accept that we have an unanswerable case for help allocated on the basis of deprivation—yet they refuse to give us that help. That is defiance of logic and a perpetuation of injustice. The Minister unblushingly admits to apparent anomalies, which is a diplomatic confession that Stoke-on-Trent is being cheated of its right to Government help. I emphasise that we are using the Government's own statistics and criteria for the allocation of that help.
The Minister tries to excuse that gross injustice by explaining that no districts are removed from designated status because they require sustained and substantial help to counter urban deprivation. Of course, that part of the argument is correct—but he omits the other part, which is that the Government have a direct responsibility to find the money to help towns and cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, which have a greater qualification for aid than some of those areas receiving it.
The Government must face reality rather than impose arbitrary penalties on cities. Do they intend at some time to remove the names of those designated districts whose level of deprivation is less than that in the areas that are refused help? If so, when and on what criteria? What is the policy on new admissions to the list? The Government cannot evade this issue. It is clear that the Minister is wriggling. I hope that tonight the Leader of the House will give some semblance of Government thinking in the matter.
The Government should be left in no doubt about how much damage to Stoke-on-Trent they are causing by refusing aid. The city has had one of the biggest rates of increase in unemployment of any area, from 4·4 per cent. in 1979 to 12·3 per cent. today. I appreciate that other areas have higher levels of unemployment, but the rate of increase in Stoke-on-Trent is menacing. The city is heavily dependent on a handful of industries, the main three of which — pottery, coal mining and tyres — have been badly hit. In pottery, once a world-beater and record exporter, 20,000 jobs have been lost. No city can continue to decline at that rate and we badly need diversification of our industrial base.
We are asking for an end to discrimination and injustice by the Government. The figures and facts prove conclusively that there is discrimination and injustice against this major city. Other areas with fewer problems are receiving aid, while we are not. I am not criticising other cities; I wish them good luck. But Stoke-on-Trent must have its entitlement. We are not simply asking to have the city propped up. The object is to seek Government help to enable us to help ourselves.
Stoke-on-Trent has a proud tradition of industrial, economic and civic progress. It already has a co-ordinated programme of projects to revitalise the city, and needs only the backing of inner area status. If it gets that direct help, and the indirect help which would flow from the EEC as a concomitant, the future of the city could be transformed. It has the expertise and will to improve factory premises, rejuvenate the environment and renew the physical infrastructure.
We are seeking to regenerate the city and give it fresh hope for the future. If the Government will listen and act, Stoke-on-Trent will be treated fairly and will move forward to a better and more prosperous future. I hope that these facts will be taken into account before the House adjourns.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I welcome this opportunity before the House adjourns to raise two subjects of great concern to my constituents and, above all, to the future of their livelihood.
The first is the miners' strike, now in its 10th week with no end in sight. The Leader of the House participated in some lively exchanges at business questions today on the subject of the lack of parliamentary debating opportunities on this issue. Like my right hon. Friend, I deplore the Leader of the Opposition's uncharacteristic transformation into a Trappist monk who has taken a vow of silence on this important subject. Unlike the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who raised the matter so vocally this afternoon, I am taking the hint which my right hon. Friend gave and making use of this opportunity to voice the concern that is deeply felt by many of my constituents and the whole nation.
For the 2,400 Kent miners, one quarter of whom live in my constituency, this strike is now unfolding with all the impending doom of a Greek tragedy. Before the strike began, the three pits in east Kent were in a precarious, though far from hopeless, position. It is true that they were losing money at the rate of £22 million a year. On the other hand, they were not on any real or imagined closure list, first because east Kent coalfield still produces some of the highest quality coking coal in Britain from a coalfield area potentially larger than the Leicester coalfield.
Secondly, the National Coal Board is now investing new Government money at the rate of £1 million a year because it believes that once the deeper seams, particularly in the Snowdown colliery, are reached, there is every prospect that the Kent coalfield can be a viable part of the industry.
Those facts were true before the strike began. We are in for a long and protracted strike, the duration of which has been gravely underestimated. A long strike has two potentially tragic aspects, one of them geological. There can be no doubt that when pits are closed for long periods that brings into question the possibility that for geological reasons they may not be reopened. There have been reports in the Dover Express to the effect that grave geological faults are emerging in the Tilmanstone colliery. I believe that so far these reports are unjustified by the facts. Nevertheless, that question must be raised the longer the strike goes on.
Secondly, there are worrying, if not tragic, financial implications to a strike. Already, after 10 weeks, miners' families in my constituency are undoubtedly being afflicted by increasing financial hardship. It is ridiculous to talk of starvation, but it is clear that times are hard for mining families and will get harder the longer the strike goes on. The fact that these are self-inflicted, or, to be more precise, Scargill-inflicted, hardships does not prevent me from having feelings of human sympathy towards any family being moved uncomfortably towards the breadline by these events.
The time has come for the Kent miners, like miners throughout the country, to consider the reality of the position, which is quite different from the position as described by Mr. Arthur Scargill. Every miner should consider that coal stocks will last for a long time yet. Mr. Scargill authoritatively claimed about 10 weeks ago that coal stocks would run out within eight weeks. That was the first of his many big lies on this issue. In fact, there are now at least 22 more weeks of coal supplies at power stations—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?

Mr. Aitken: —and these will be increased to at least 30 weeks of energy supplies by extra production from oil and nuclear power stations during the summer.

Mr. Skinner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I asked a parliamentary question last week about the exact coal stocks available in Britain—a question which has always been answered by Ministers, whatever the complexion of the Government in power, certainly in the 14 years during which I have been in the House—the Government, at this important time, refused to say how much coal was available at power stations?

Mr. David Harris: Why should they?

Mr. Skinner: Because they did in 1972. When Arthur Scargill said that there were eight or 10 weeks' supply, at that time the power stations were eating up coal three times faster than later, at Easter, when the weather was much warmer. He was, therefore, correct in his forecast at that time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that eight weeks' supply at one rate of consumption can be totally different compared with consumption at a different rate, with much depending on the weather.

Mr. Aitken: Not for the first time the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is unable to distinguish between fact and fiction. Ten weeks ago, Arthur Scargill said that only eight weeks of coal supplies remained. That has turned out to be, like so many of Scargill's claims, fantasy and nonsense.
The hon. Member for Bolsover need not, as a result, turn to Ministers, whose integrity he clearly doubts on this and many other issues. I suggest that he turns to perhaps the most authoritative source of reporting today on this issue, The Economist, which said that, unless the CEGB, the NCB, the Government, British Rail and everyone else were lying through their teeth, there were at least 22 weeks of coal supplies left at the power stations.

Mr. Skinner: Like when the hon. Gentleman sacked Anna Ford and had a glass of wine poured over him.

Mr. Aitken: The hon. Gentleman, falling back on a bad case, must resort to personal abuse. Let him listen to a little more truth.
I said that I thought that existing coal supplies, with 22 weeks of life, would be expanded into at least 30 weeks of energy supplies at the power stations by extra production from oil and nuclear power stations during the summer. My constituents, Kent miners, need only look at the vast chimneys of the oil-fired Richborough power station near Sandwich and see those chimneys burning at full power throughout the night to realise that existing coal supplies are visibly being extended. If one adds to that the effect of Nottinghamshire's coal production — some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are working in those pits—who are producing coal—

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Mr. Aitken: —at a rate of some 300,000 tonnes a week, then even the hon. Gentleman should realise that this is a strike which, although it is biting on miners' families, will not bite on industry until the early months of 1985 at the earliest.
What is this long struggle really for? I suggest that every miner, in Kent or anywhere else, should study the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 16 March, when he said:
Not one single miner who wishes to continue working as a miner will be prevented from doing so.
He went on to explain that, although the closure of uneconomic pits will reduce manpower, nevertheless those reductions will be taken in volunteers. There are plenty of volunteers.

Mr. Skinner: He was lying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should know that such language should not be used about an hon. Member.

Mr. Skinner: I am talking about Ian MacGregor. He is a liar and he has been lying through his teeth ever since he got the £1·5 million job on the taxpayer, and the Government lied about that.

Mr. Aitken: Repeat that outside.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members have strong views about issues that they want to raise tonight and the cross talk merely delays my opportunity to call hon. Members.

Mr. Aitken: I am sorry that the representation of crucial facts should provoke the hon. Gentleman so seriously.

Mr. Skinner: I am just telling the truth.

Mr. Aitken: That is the last thing that the hon. Gentleman is telling.
Voluntary reductions in this industry are occurring. Miners are voting with their feet. One has only to look at the number of applications and the amount of interest in the very generous redundancy arrangements that are available. The hon. Member for Bolsover might also like to know that some 30 miners in Kent have opted for new jobs without even applying for redundancy, so already there is a movement in this direction. The hon. Gentleman must not repeat the stale accusation that Mr. MacGregor and the Government are in some way intent on butchering the industry.

Mr. Skinner: Of course they are.

Mr. Aitken: In fact, the Government have been investing £2 million a day, and are continuing to do so, and they have made a pay offer that is higher than that which has been available to many workers in other industries.
We have seen Mr. Scargill playing the role of the Grand Old Duke of York—he has marched his men up to the top of the hill and he will have to march them down again, and in the process miner has been set against miner, and a proud union has been divided within itself, and as a result thousands of jobs will be unnecessarily lost. I want to see a strong viable coal industry in Kent as in the rest of the country. The time has come when miners have to choose between saving their families' finances and their livelihoods and saving Mr. Scargill's political face. I know what I would rather choose.
Unfortunately, the miners' strike is not the only threat to livelihoods in my constituency. I wish also to raise the subject of the highly damaging consequences of the French Government's ban on no-passport trips to France. This was announced last week and will come into effect in July. The present no-passport excursion arrangements have been in existence for nearly 30 years. They have worked satisfactorily and well and have given a great deal of pleasure to people who travel on low-cost fares to France. Last year more than 1·5 million British travellers, many of them pensioners and schoolchildren, made no-passport trips.
A considerable industry has grown up around these arrangements. That industry and the jobs that go with it are in peril. For example, the Sally Line, in my constituency, the principal shipping company for the Channel port of Ramsgate, last year carried 300,000 day trippers without passports to France. They paid between £7 and £9, depending on which time of the year they travelled, and that revenue counted for nearly one third of the Sally Line's total income. Some cross-channel operators depend for nearly 50 per cent. of their income on such day trip excursions. They will be hit, and hit hard, by the French Government's change of policy.
It is not just the shipping companies that will be hit. At least three travel agents in my constituency specialise in these no-passport travel arrangements and they, together with hotels, coach operators, shops and traders, will be savagely hit. Throughout the channel ports, hundreds of jobs are at risk.
Two questions need to be asked. The first is why the French have done it, and the second is whether there is any chance that the French Government will change their mind. There is a third question, which can be quickly disposed of—can we issue a different kind of identity card for these travel purposes? The answer to that is no, or not without disproportionate cost, because an identity card such as that which the French are suggesting would cost at least £2 and possibly £3, which on top of the low cost price would be damaging to the chances of any business.
Why have the French done it? The unilateral suspension of these no-passport arrangements is an unreasonable and insensitive move by the French Government that cannot be justified by any logical or rational explanation. The proof of this lies in the fact that the French Government have so far failed dismally to justify their actions, despite repeated requests from British diplomats and Ministers. Not one iota of evidence has been produced by the French to substantiate the theory that no-passport trippers from the United Kingdom are the source of black illegal immigrants.

Mr. Tom Cox: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments, and they are valid. Is he aware that many of us, irrespective of which side of the Chamber we sit on, who represent black and Asian constituents realise that the attitude of the French has been a source of great embarrassment? The French have been refusing black and Asian citizens of this country entry. That degrades the whole system.

Mr. Aitken: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate the theory that the French interior Minister has voiced, the French attitude must stand condemned as a policy displaying primitive racial prejudice. That is intolerable in itself, but it is doubly intolerable in that it is now destroying jobs and livelihoods in our shipping and travel industries.
The Government need to make some firm diplomatic response. To date, the Foreign Office reaction to the French ban is low key, if not feeble. There has been no reciprocal retaliation and as yet no formal diplomatic protest. We are supposed to have some muscle with President Mitterrand over deals with the EEC budget, but that muscle has not yet been twitched. Why not? Surely our diplomacy has not been reduced to the wringing of hands and shrugging our shoulders and saying that nothing can be done when a unilateral decision to suspend arrangements that have lasted for nearly 30 years is made.
I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the Government will not sit by and see 1·5 million British citizens a year deprived of the advantage of low—passport trips to France, and an assurance that the Government will fight for the hundreds of jobs of the people affected.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the opportunity given to me by this spring Adjournment debate to bring to the attention of hon. Members before the House adjourns the need for progress to be made by the Government in establishing in Northern Ireland democratic institutions that provide an opportunity for elected representatives there to have a meaningful and responsible role in decision making and in shaping the future of the Province.
As a councillor in Northern Ireland I point out that the interest in our local government by those who have professional training and commercial expertise is fast disappearing. One wonders which skills, if any, some of the next generation of councillors will have. The reason for this is the limited responsibility and duties of councillors. They are responsible only for such things as street cleaning, burying the dead, collecting and disposing of domestic waste, providing leisure facilities for the people, many of whom cannot afford to use them, dog licensing, dog catching, some influence in promotion of the council area, public health matters, building control and striking of the local rate.
Those are not very inspiring or demanding duties and they result in fewer and fewer good calibre candidates coming forward. There are nominated boards composed mainly of non-elected, non-accountable members with a small percentage of elected representatives. In other words, wholly undemocratic bodies control and make decisions on health, education and so on. Roads, planning, housing, water and sewerage are all controlled by professional civil servants and Ministers, many of whom are on short-term commissions to Northern Ireland.
It is complete nonsense to continue to believe that pandering to criminals, gunmen and bombers, or those who claim to represent them politically, could bring about peace. Progress in Northern Ireland can be achieved only by the complete defeat of terrorists and criminals of whatever persuasion and by demonstrating with determination that terrorism will not succeed.
Unionists representative of the whole community in Northern Ireland are opposed to violence and want to achieve peace and prosperity for the good of all. Unionists from both communities have shown clearly in election after election and through a recent referendum their complete opposition to becoming absorbed into a united Ireland or anything which could in future lead in that direction. Ulster Unionists are committed to maintaining the union. Unionists recognised that there is a need and desire for greater co-operation and participation within Northern Ireland by all decent citizens who cherish their British heritage.
There is now an opportunity to build for the future. The way forward can be found. That way forward is contained in the discussion paper presented by the Ulster Unionist Assembly party's report committee. I urge hon. Members to consider it carefully and to recognise that the solution is only to be found for Northern Ireland by Nothern. Ireland elected representatives coming together and genuinely working together to resolve the present difficulties. I trust that the Leader of the House will commend the document "The Way Forward" to the Government and support the Secretary of State in granting administrative devolution at this time to the Northern Ireland Assembly and so start devolution rolling.
As Unionists we are aware of the problems. We accept the responsibility and challenge. The support of the House could produce the result which we all desire. We shall not abuse trust placed in us and shall continue to take account of and make provision for all citizens, respecting the aspirations and principles of others without sacrificing our own.
I sincerely hope that the House will lead the way forward and encourage the Secretary of State to make


progress possible for the benefit of all law—abiding citizens in Northern Ireland when he addresses the House early in June after the recess.
In Northern Ireland presently some see the candidature of the present Speaker of the Assembly in the European election as recognition of fears realised and expressed by him in the House in 1982 when he saw that in its present form the Northern Ireland Assembly is a dodo. It is threatening him with future redundancy, hence his need to seek alternative employment.
I look forward to witnessing the leadership which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should display on our return when I hope that he will inject new life into the stillborn Assembly and transform it by devolving responsibility to it.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) about the need for administrative devolution in the Province. I commend to the Government for recess reading the excellent Ulster Unionists' document, "The Way Forward".
Before the House rises for the spring recess it is most important that it should consider its approach to law and order with special reference to young people. Of particular and growing concern to all, which I wish to emphasise, must be the soaring level of violence and the increasing incidence of youth involvement in such appalling activity.
Whether we talk about hooligans or vandals or whether we prefer the modern term "yobboes" to the archaic "hobbledehoys", the conclusions can only be the same. There is a developing fear among ordinary law-abiding citizens for the future of a decent and respectable society.
The street scene of today is becoming a daunting prospect for many people, especially the elderly and those unaccompanied. The soccer match is becoming the battlefield for mindless attacks on rival so-called supporters. The shopping centre is becoming the focal point for the display of obscene graffiti. The housing estate is becoming the playground for the wilful wreckers and destroyers of public and private property.
Let me give but one example of that violence and refer to the problems of vandalism. In my constituency in the Welwyn and Hatfield police area the figure jumped by over 50 per cent. during the previous month. There were 96 offences of criminal damage costing £7,243 compared with 56 offences costing £4,692 the month before. It is an example such as that which, hardly surprisingly, brings forth the response, "What are the Government doing about it?"
The Government have rightly and constantly been a proponent of firmer measures on law and order and they have both toughened sentences and strengthened the police. But clearly even more determined action is unfortunately called for and there can be no delay. A greater sense of responsibility inculcated in children and parents alike is also needed. Deterrence, too, is vital if this outrage is to be conquered. All those require the Government to give a positive lead in the interest and protection of the people we seek to serve.
Not so long ago a slogan was devised for publicity material which said, "Stamp out vandalism"—literally, a step in the right direction. As we consider whether the

House should rise for the spring recess many hon. Members will be contemplating, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, the action that they should take with regard to their lawn. Stamping on weeds may do great damage but they have an all too familiar tendency to root deeper and to grow again the stronger, so more is required. Violent behaviour, of whatever type, appears to follow a similar growth pattern. The only answer for both is complete eradication.

Mr. David Winnick: A number of topics should be discussed before we go into the recess. One is undoubtedly the mining dispute. I shall not speak on that topic tonight, but I know that some of my hon. Friends will. However, I strongly disagree with the remarks on the dispute made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I should far rather listen to the views of those involved in the mining dispute in his area. They know far more about the industry than he does. I am not quite sure whether he is speaking from all the experience that he has gained in industrial relations in various enterprises. However, as I say, I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to deal with that topic.
Opposition Members are concerned about the continued imprisonment of Sarah Tisdall. We argue that she should never have been sent to prison in the first place, and the sooner that she is released the better.
There needs to be a debate, as indicated at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), on the New Ireland Forum. I trust that that debate will take place as soon as possible after the recess.
The topic with which I wish to deal is the forthcoming visit to this country of the South African Prime Minister at the invitation of the Prime Minister. I believe that such an invitation humiliates this country. A South African Prime Minister last came to Britain in 1961 at the time of the Heads of Commonwealth meetings, and I well remember demonstrating then. Conservative Members seem not to realise the seriousness of the situation. In 1961, the Commonwealth understood only too well the position.
At that time, we were saying that South Africa should not be in the Commonwealth. In 1961, during the time that the then South African Prime Minister was in this country, he came to the conclusion that it was better to withdraw his country rather than that it should be expelled. We were delighted that the apartheid regime was no longer represented in the multiracial Commonwealth. I doubt whether even those Conservative Members who are so keen on links with South Africa would advocate that South Africa should come back into the Commonwealth.
There is no doubt that the major prize for Botha in coming here is the respectability and acceptance for which the apartheid regime has craved. The Prime Minister can go on about her opposition to apartheid in South Africa. The South African leaders are not particularly worried about such remarks. They expect it from her. They and we know that it is the kind of ritual condemnation that even the most Right—wing members of the Tory party voice.
Inviting Botha to this country is evidence enough that the present British Government have no real commitment to opposing the South African regime and isolating what can only be described as a notorious racist and repressive tyranny. Today, in The Times, one reads that some 2 million black people in South Africa have been what is


described as "re-allocated" since 1960 in pursuit of some racist idea that dominates, and has dominated, South Africa since the late 1940s.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: rose—

Mr. Winnick: We know that basic human rights and liberties do not exist in that country for the large majority of people. I may be anticipating the intervention of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) who will perhaps say that surely there are other tyrannies and oppressive regimes in the world. Of course there are. I would be the last to be the apologist for such regimes. The difference in the case of South Africa, as has been recognised time and again by the international community, is that it is the only regime in the world that penalises and differentiates, not because of people's ideas and activities, which is bad enough, but because of the colour of a person's skin. That is why South Africa has been isolated, and why I believe that it is such a humiliation for Britain to have invited the South African Prime Minister to this country.

Mr. Stanbrook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having anticipated my question. Would he welcome Mr. Chernenko if he wished to come to this country?

Mr. Winnick: I think that my remarks answer the hon. Gentleman. I have stated the difference. What some Conservative Members seem not to understand even now is the difference in the case of South Africa and its obnoxious regime, which to a large extent is based on the same type of ideology that dominated Nazi Germany from 1933 to when the Third Reich was destroyed.
Institutionalised violence and state repression have continued to increase in South Africa. Any changes that have taken place in that country in more recent times have been of a purely cosmetic nature. It is simply to try to improve the image of South Africa to people overseas.
It is well to bear in mind that for over 20 years Nelson Mandela and others like him have been in prison. It would be far better if the British Government were demanding at the United Nations and elsewhere that Nelson Mandela be released. Of course, he should never have been put in prison. He represents the views of the large majority in South Africa. The ideas that Madela stands for will never be extinguished in that country, however long he remains in prison. As we know, the South African authorities also wage war against neighbouring states. They continue in illegal occupation of Namibia. Those are the facts of the external scene there.
A television programme in this country only last week showed the extent of the illegal activities carried out by the South African secret police, BOSS, from the embassy in London. Burglaries, arson and arms deals of an illegal nature are the kind of activities that have been carried out in which, as was seen in the programme, former agents of the regime admitted their past involvement. It would do no harm if the British Government showed concern about the illegal activities carried out by the South African embassy in this country.
One of the aims—apart from the respectability and the respect that Botha desperately wants, and hence his pleasure at being invited to this country—is an attempt to gag the South African opponents of the South African regime from being active in this country. No doubt he will be pressing the British Government for the closure of the offices of the African National Congress.
I maintain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the visit should be cancelled. If it goes ahead, there will be a massive demonstration on 2 June. There will be the opportunity for many people of different political opinions, affiliations and persuasions who despise apartheid to show their solidarity with Nelson Mandela and with the victims of apartheid by demonstrating on that day.
The great majority of the British people are on the side of those in South Africa who are opposed to that tyranny. The job of Labour Members is to make sure tonight, on 2 June and thereafter, that that voice is clearly heard in every way.

Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) should ask his Marxist friends in Mozambique about the importance of maintaining contact with the South African Prime Minister. They realise the value of doing so. Our own Prime Minister sensibly has decided that it will be a good idea for the South African Prime Minister to come here, and I am sure that a warm welcome will be extended to him.

Mr. Winnick: By the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Dudley Smith: And by thousands of other people. I shall discuss the matter 'with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion.
I am a representative of this Parliament at the Council of Europe, and I note that at least two of my colleagues in the Council of Europe are present in the Chamber. Two subjects which the Council of Europe has discussed extensively in the last two weeks, and which I think should commend themselves to the House, are important and of concern to this country. They are possibly the two most dangerous matters that could undermine civilised society, with the exception of nuclear war, which would end civilisation.
I am referring to the growth of international terrorism and to the growth of drug addiction, particularly in this country. I know that from time to time we have discussed these two matters in the House, but, alas, all too often, we discuss the former only after the latest outrage has occurred. I am afraid that it is a spot reaction, and we rarely have the opportunity to discuss such issues in detail. My plea to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is that we should discuss both these subjects at more regular intervals than at present. By doing so we can manifest our concern to those whom we represent and show our determination to improve the fight against both of those evils, for which, admittedly, there are no easy counters and probably no complete solutions.
Although there is international co-ordination and consultation on terrorism, it must be refined and improved more successfully than has so far been the case. Terrorists must be hunted down relentlessly, and in every country their punishment must be of an exemplary nature. Recently, following Council of Europe moves on this subject, I was interviewed by a representative of the New York Times, who said, "Ah, yes, but you politicians must have difficulty in deciding when terrorists cease being terrorists and become freedom fighters". Such warped thinking must be countered at every turn. Terrorism can never be justified in a democracy. On the whole, it cannot be justified in countries even where standards are less


democratic than our own in northern Europe. The killing and maiming of innocent people, either as a gesture or in the course of a particular enterprise, is a crime against humanity itself. Until we start winning the fight against terrorism, its continued growth will be depressingly predictable.
I shall now deal briefly with the vexed subject of drugs. I dislike emotive phrases, because they are usually exaggerated, but I do not think that it is going too far to suggest that drug addiction in Britain today is reaching epidemic proportions. Successive Governments have done much to counter the worrying trend that has developed, but much more needs to be done. Hard drugs such as heroin are being smuggled into the country at an alarming rate so successfully that I understand the street price is now only a few pounds for what is colloquially known as a "fix", whereas just a few years ago the price was prohibitive.
Inevitably that widens the market, and those responsible for the dissemination of such drugs, who are known as "pushers", have a vested interest in extending the availability of the drugs and their clientele. I believe that the official figures for addiction given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and which appear in the press bear little relation to the truth. All official sources seriously underestimate them.
The problem is very deep, and many points could be made, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will refer two particular points to those responsible. First, the public, and particularly young people, have no idea how difficult it is permanently to cure a drug addict. There are all too many people who presume that it is rather like alcoholism, or even smoking, and that with a good deal of strong will on the part of the individual, and a certain amount of attention from the medical fraternity, he can be cured and be able to walk away. That is not so. It is very difficult indeed to wean someone off hard drugs and there is a much greater danger of recidivism than there is with, for example, alcoholism. There is a great need for publicity, particularly for the young, about the dangers of hard drug addiction and the almost inevitable course to the grave if it is pursued for any length of time.
Secondly, we should emphasise the need to check the flow of such drugs into the country. These days it is unfashionable to call for more officials. Indeed, I completely support the Government in their determination to reduce the number of civil servants and officials, but there are some circumstances in which we need to increase them. At present there is a very strong case—because of the epidemic—for expanding the Customs service. For every person caught illegally bringing in a bottle of gin or whisky at an airport or port, there are probably two or three who go undetected smuggling in hard drugs.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that the Customs do a good job against the odds. It is very much a hit or miss affair whether they detect those bringing in these vile concoctions. As we probably all know from our own experience, the vast majority of travellers are not checked when they come into the country. I recommend that we now go over to a system of full checks on a random basis, so that for a period of time on any given day every traveller coming through is checked. Other countries in Europe do that, and it proves fairly effective. It also means less predictability, so that travellers can never be sure

whether there will be a full-scale check and they will be stopped and examined. In that way, the villains can be detected.
I read this week that legislation to strengthen the power of the courts to deprive drug traffickers and other criminals of their ill-gotten gains is unlikely now to be brought forward in the next Session of Parliament. I hope that that is not true. The party promised that measure, and it should be given reasonable priority. Most people are affronted by the idea that those convicted of such vile crimes can still profit from them in the long run.
For the reasons which I have stated, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look favourably on the idea of returning to those two subjects at more regular intervals than at present. There is intense public interest in them.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I very much welcome the opportunity to raise the case of Barry Arthur Foster. It involves the gravest miscarriage of justice in at least a decade. It also involves the culpability of the Home Office, and is so serious that the facts should be given to the House. The Minister has effectively disclaimed responsibility
On 30 April 1977, at about 3.15 pm, two police officers from the Nottingham force called at the home in Nottingham of Barry Arthur Foster. Mr. Foster, who was then aged 31 and had no previous convictions, was severely subnormal with an IQ of 63. He had spent a considerable proportion of his life in mental hospitals.
His mental condition was clear to the two officers, since in their statements they both referred to the fact that he appeared to be mentally retarded. In spite of that, they spoke to Foster on his own before his mother returned to the house. They asked him about serious sex offences against 10-year-old girls committed in the area. Before the mother returned a quarter of an hour later Foster had made admissions regarding the attack on one of the girls.
Shortly after his mother returned to the house she and Barry Foster went to the local police station with the two officers. They arrived at about 3.45 pm. On the way there Foster is alleged by the police to have pointed out the places where the attacks on that girl and another girl had taken place.
At the police station he was interviewed on different occasions by different officers. At 6 pm he was seen again by the two detective constables. At 6.45 pm he was seen by two other officers who said that he would be interviewed again when a social worker was present. That interview, attended by a Mr. Fred Wright, a social worker at the mental hospital where Foster had most recently been a patient, lasted from 7.28 pm to 8.14 pm on the same evening.
According to police statements, during each of the interviews Foster made damaging admissions about attacks on two 10-year-old girls. That was independently confirmed in the case of the interview attended by Mr. Wright. He signed a lengthy statement setting out the exchanges between the police and Mr. Foster from which it is clear that Foster admitted responsibility for the attacks. Mr. Wright has since stated that he had no doubt at the time that the admissions were genuine.
On 2 May Foster was interviewed on his own by different officers about an attack on a third 10-year-old girl. Again, he confessed to the attack. He was then


charged with rape of the first girl, attempted rape of the second child and attempted buggery and indecent assault on the third child.
When the case came to trial on 7 November 1977, Foster pleaded guilty to the charges of rape and attempted rape. The charges of attempted buggery and indecent assault in respect of the third child were not proceeded with.
In February 1978 Mr. Justice Stephen Brown sentenced Foster to be detained indefinitely at Rampton hospital. In July 1981 police in Accrington, Lancashire, apprehended another man, Denzil Pearce, who in the course of being interviewed said that he had committed sexual offences against children in many parts of the country, including Nottingham. He was handed over to the police in Nottingham and took them to the places where the offences to which he had confessed had been committed.
The Nottingham police became satisfied from the circumstantial detail in Pearce's statement that he and not Foster had committed the offences against the first and third child. Pearce did not confess to the attempted rape of the second child.
In December 1981, Pearce pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to the first and third attacks referred to in the Foster case. He asked for 70 similar offences to be taken into account. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
It was, therefore, clear to the Nottingham police from July 1981 that Barry Foster had confessed to two serious sex attacks which he did not commit. It seems that at some point after Pearce's trial the police drew the Director of Public Prosecution's attention to the matter and he made representations to the Home Office. As a result, in March 1982 Mr. Foster was granted a royal pardon on the rape charge, but he stayed in Rampton because the Home Office saw no reason to act in relation to the second charge to which Pearce had not confessed. They did nothing about the charges in relation to the third girl.
Fortunately for Mr. Foster, in 1983 the case was referred to the mental health tribunal under the provisions of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 which requires an automatic review of such cases every three years. The solicitor in the case saw from the papers at the tribunal hearing that the Home Office was still treating Foster as basically guilty. He asked the Home Office to take another look at the case. As a result, the Home Office completely changed its attitude.
On 26 March this year an application was made on behalf of Mr. Foster to have his two convictions quashed and to have the charges in relation to the third girl, which has not been proceeded with, brought forward and dismissed. The DPP and the Home Office supported the application. The Court of Appeal held that the royal pardon did not quash a conviction, that only the court could do that, and it granted all Mr. Foster's applications. He therefore left the court without a stain on his character.
By then, however, he had spent about seven years in custody, including over six years at Rampton hospital for the criminally insane. Hon. Members will not need me to spell out what is implied by that appalling fact.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Social Services is currently taking evidence on the treatment of mentally handicapped and mentally ill people who are leaving hospital and that, on several occasions, it has been drawn to our attention that people outside, such as the

police, do not know how to handle mentally handicapped people and have a tendency to pick them up when cases of this type have occurred? I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that some aspects of the case to which he referred, and which I have been following with great interest, might be referred to the Select Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: I am aware of the consideration being given to this matter by the Select Committee, and I have no doubt that the details of the case will be of interest to it. My criticisms of the police are perhaps less than my criticisms of the Home Office, although it seems clear from the evidence that in this case the police did not follow the judges' rules.
The case raises the following extremely serious questions: how did Barry Foster come to confess to offences that he did not commit? The details of his admissions must have come from the police officers—there is no other explanation of how he came to know of the facts.
It is not suggested that the police officers concerned knowingly got an innocent man who was mentally subnormal to confess, but that is, in fact, what happened. Possibly this would not have happened if they had complied with the requirements in the judges' rules that a person who is mentally handicapped should not be interviewed unless a responsible adult is present. Foster made his first admission during the first interview on that fatal day in April 1977 when he was seen by the two officers with no one else present.
Why was Foster never put on an identification parade? He is short, whereas Pearce is very tall. Foster wears spectacles, whereas Pearce does not. It is unlikely that Foster would have been picked out by any of the three girls.
It appears that there has been no inquiry by the Nottingham police as to what went wrong. A statement made on behalf of the Nottingham police at the beginning of April 1984 stated that the reason for this was that the case was sub judice and that the papers were with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Apparently, the Director of Public Prosecutions has denied that. He has said that his office is not and has not been considering any possible action against the police officers concerned and that it has been making no inquiry into this case. One should have thought that the police or police authority would have been anxious to investigate how such a grievous miscarriage of justice came to occur and what lessons could he learnt from it for the future.
How was it that the Home Office took several years to respond appropriately to the fact that Denzil Pearce confessed to two of the three charges against Barry Foster? The royal pardon granted in March 1982 should plainly have applied also to the charges that had not been proceeded with arising out of the attack on the third girl. It is difficult to understand how this obvious point could have been overlooked. If it had been seen, it must surely have occurred also to the officials dealing with the case that the guilty plea in relation to the second charge was, to say the least, highly suspect. If two of the three confessions were shown to have been wholly false, how could any reliance be placed on the third?
Either the royal pardon should have been given for all three attacks or, at the very least, the attack to which Pearce had not confessed should have been referred to the Court of Appeal. When the case did, in fact, reach the


Court of Appeal in March 1984, the Home Office agreed that all the charges should be cancelled. It was gross negligence on the part of the Home Office that it took from late 1981 or early 1982 to spring 1984 to reach this conclusion. Barry Foster spent an extra two years in Rampton simply and solely because of bungling incompetence in the Home Office.
The Home Office has so far responded to the case only by a written answer to me from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 11 April 1984 to the effect that the case of Barry Foster had been "fully and promptly" investigated after the Director of Public Prosecutions had told the Home Office in 1981 that Denzil Pearce had confessed to crimes for which Barry Foster had pleaded guilty. This is manifestly untrue. The case was not investigated "fully" or "promptly". If it had been, Foster would have been released then instead of more than two years later. On any view, therefore, the Home Office response has been wholly inadequate.
The case is perhaps the clearest in recent years for a substantial payment of ex gratia compensation. I believe that it calls also for a public judicial inquiry. When a gross miscarriage of justice takes place, caused apparently by the culpability of both the police and Home Office officials, an inquiry is essential to demonstrate that there has been no attempt to avoid acknowledgement of wrongdoing and to consider what may be done to avoid the danger that such tragedies will recur.
I understand that Mr. Foster is a constituent of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway). The hon. Gentleman has said that he wishes to associate himself with the concern which I have expressed this evening. He too considers the matter to be of the greatest importance. I have raised the matter as The spokesman on home affairs of the Social Democratic party, but I have no doubt that when the facts become known it will be a matter of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to announce that the Home Office will study the facts again carefully and consider the establishment of a judicial inquiry, as I have suggested.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It is unfair of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to raise an alleged case of miscarriage of justice on the motion before the House, which is intended to provide an opportunity for those of us who wish to continue the sittings of the House to discuss various matters before the House rises.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland advanced his case in the absence of any Home Office Ministers. He has made an attack on the Home Office in the most violent terms, and apparently he did not warn the Home Office of his intention to do so. He could easily have raised the matter on an Adjournment debate. There are plenty of opportunities for raising such a matter on the Adjournment at the end of the term and he could do so before the House rises for the Whitsun recess. On the final sitting before we adjourn there will be an opportunity for timed Adjournment debates, when subjects precisely akin to the one that he has raised can be ventilated. On such an occasion he can notify the Home Office in detail of the accusations that he wishes to make. As it is, he has taken

advantage of an opportunity in the House to enjoy immunity while making allegations against those who he claims to be responsible for the miscarriage of justice. It was an abuse of the House, but I appreciate that once having started on his course he had to continue.

Mr. Maclennan: I informed the office of the Leader of the House of my intention to raise the matter so that he could—I assume that he has—consult his Home Office colleagues. Secondly, this is not the first occasion on which I have raised the matter in the House. I raised it in an oral question to the Home Secretary some weeks ago and I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is fully apprised of my concern and is in a better position to know the facts than I am.

Mr. Stanbrook: As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is incapable of replying to the accusations that he has made. He is not provided with a brief and he has no pre-knowledge of the accusations or how to reply to them. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know the proper way of raising these matters, but he has chosen to do so in a thoroughly reprehensible way.
I suggest to the House that it should not rise before we have considered and had a chance of discussing recent reports on the constitutional progress in Northern Ireland which have been made by Unionist parties in Northern Ireland.
Any indigenous effort to begin political progress in Northern Ireland should be warmly welcomed. There have been many solutions proposed to the constitutional problems of Northern Ireland, some of them by foreign Governments or foreign institutions, and some by British Ministers including Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. The solution which has been proposed by the Ulster Unionist party, called "The Way Ahead", is particularly worthy of consideration by the House. It is modest and because of its source as coming from Unionists it is a precious document which deserves our consideration. It is a discussion paper which was produced by the Ulster Unionist Assembly Party's Report Committee and it is entitled "Devolution and the Northern Ireland Assembly, The Way Forward".
I do not care for the word "devolution"; I am not keen on the idea at all. However, the report makes a constructive contribution to the discussion of the possible solution for the constitutional dilemma in Northern Ireland. We do not need foreign Governments and foreign political parties to lecture us on what to do with part of the United Kingdom. In one such instance an outside body has had the effrontery to suggest that the Republic should absorb Northern Ireland under cover of a specious constitutional formula. What we need are ideas for progressively easing the friction which undoubtedly exists between people in Northern Ireland. Whatever others may say about a solution to the problems, unless an end is brought to the violence by such solutions we should not give them serious consideration.
We should be directing ourselves towards conciliation between the various elements in the Province. I warmly welcome, as I suggest that the House should warmly welcome, the proposals in the report. Briefly, it proposes that the so-called "Macrory gap" can be closed by the implementation of the rest of the Macrory proposals.
The House will know that county councils and county borough councils in Northern Ireland were abolished in


1970 on the report's recommendation. Their functions were to be transferred, according to the report, to the old Stormont Assembly. Those councils were abolished. Since then, there has been no upper tier of local government in Northern Ireland. Local councils having been abolished, so, too, was the Stormont Assembly. Direct rule ensued not only for those functions previously exercised by the Stormont Assembly but also for those formerly exercised by local authorities in the Province.
Ulster Unionists say in the report that those functions and powers which county councils formerly exercised before their abolition should be given to the present Ulster Assembly in Belfast. It should be allowed to have them. This is a most constructive contribution to come from the Ulster Unionist party about the powers of the Northern Ireland Assembly because of the checks and balances that were so carefully written into the constitution of the present Assembly at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. All that is part of the existing system and constitution of the Assembly in Northern Ireland, so it is possible for those extra powers deriving from local government to be conferred upon the Assembly.
In addition to that very useful and interesting suggestion, the report goes on to recommend the institution of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, so that the minorities there, especially those who claim that they are discriminated against on account of religion or national affiliation, can be given the assurance that they have the same rights as all citizens of Northern Ireland or, indeed, of the United Kingdom.
The suggestions are modest and simple. I believe that the Government should eschew the flirtation with a foreign power and its suggestions for the incorporation of a part of the United Kingdom into their territory and should eagerly adopt the suggestion made by Ulster Unionists. For that reason, we should not adjourn the House until we have had a chance to discuss this important and valuable document.

Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to raise the question of Cyprus because I believe that it is the duty of Members to keep that issue alive and to remind the Government, as one of the guarantor powers, of their responsibilities to that island.
I am sure that many hon. Members are fully aware of the tragic events in Cyprus—the invasion by Turkey some 10 years ago and the sad events since then. Equally, I am sure that many hon. Members are aware that for many years we were told that inter-communal talks offered hopes for a solution. There was a time when those talks seemed to offer hope for the island's future, but as they dragged on I am sure that many hon. Members and, indeed, the people of Cyprus themselves realised that the talks had become meaningless.
I wish to refer to events in Cyprus since the unilateral declaration of independence by the Denktash regime in the occupied northern part of Cyprus in November 1983. Six months have passed since that declaration and there is a feeling of hopelessness in Cyprus about the prospect of reunification of the island. Although many countries condemned UDI—this country, to its credit, was one of the first — there seems to be no meaningful action

against the Denktash regime to call upon it, first, to renounce its declaration and, secondly, to enter into meaningful talks.
Let us consider the discussions that have taken place at the United Nations, not since 1974 but since November last year. The Secretary-General has made meaningful attempts with regard to the Famagusta question and trying to stop the Turkish administration seeking to consolidate what it now proudly describes as its "state" in the occupied north. Sadly, as any hon. Member can see from the record, as in the past, Mr. Denktash has deliberately done nothing. Although firm proposals were put to him by the Secretary-General in January this year, Mr. Denktash was claiming in March that he had only just heard of the proposals and that he needed time to consider them, question their meaning, and so on. As so often in the past, he is simply stalling for time.
Against that background and the condemnation throughout the world of his action last November, we now hear that Mr. Denktash intends to call for a referendum in August this year based on the illegal declaration and that in November this year there will be a general election in the northern occupied part of Cyprus. Are those really the actions of someone who claims to be a leader and to want a meaningful, honourable settlement to the tragic situation that has existed in Cyprus for the past 10 years?
There are other factors with which the House should be acquainted. It will be interesting if the Leader of the House is able to comment on them. If he cannot, perhaps he will kindly convey them to his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
In April this year Turkey accredited a Turkish ambassador to the northern occupied part of Cyprus, followed rapidly by an ambassador from the occupied north being accredited to Ankara. Again, one must ask whether those are the actions of someone who seeks a meaningful solution to the events that have taken place in Cyprus.
The record of Mr. Denktash over the years can be summed up not so much by what I or any other hon. Member says but by the attitude taken by the United States House of Representatives where in a recent debate the attitude of Mr. Denktash to the supposed peace talks in which he claims to be involved was described as "a tired charade". That sums up the sadness of the events.
I have often referred to the tragedy of the 2,000 missing men, women and children. For years Mr. Denktash told us that no one was missing. After pressure was exerted on him, he claimed that there might be people missing but did not know how many. Whatever his attitude, the sad fact is that the regime provides no information about the tragic happenings of the people who disappeared following the invasion.
There is also the question of the freedom of movement. We are told repeatedly that the Denktash regime is peaceable, yet it refuses to allow those people who were forced from their homes in the north to return to the occupied areas to visit their property and land. We must question what his real attitude is.
The problem is urgent. Recently we discussed the events in the middle east, where tragically there is continuous conflict. Cyprus could become part of that tragedy. Sadly—this often hinders meaningful progress —many people say, "Nothing really bad is happening in


Cyprus. Why should we get involved?" Cyprus could be dragged into the middle east conflict easily and quickly, and so could we.
We have military bases in Cyprus. Successive Governments seem to have thought that, although we have those bases, there is no need to worry about them because nothing will happen to them. However, events change. If we do not settle the problems quickly, especially the problem of UDI, the Cypriot people will increasingly feel that they cannot look to the guarantor powers, such as the United Kingdom, to help them, and that we have no right to have bases there.
Can the Leader of the House tell us — the Prime Minister tells us repeatedly of her personal relationship with the President of the United States—what pressure the United States is putting on Ankara? None of us is in doubt that the Turkish administration survives because of financial and military aid from the United States. Is the United States putting pressure on Mr. Denktash and the administration in Ankara to sit round the table and discuss these events?
In all my speeches about Cyprus I have claimed that I do not distinguish between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. They are the people who live in Cyprus, whether in the north or in the south, and they should be encouraged to live together. Whatever their differences, Cyprus is their homeland and they do not wish to live anywhere else.
Unless there is some meaningful action in the near future, the events that have dragged on for the past 10 years will not, I fear, continue to drag on in that way. I ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Prime Minister the urgency of this problem. The British have a responsibility. Britain, Greece and Turkey are the three guarantor powers for Cyprus. But under Labour and Conservative Governments we have not faced our responsibility. It is time to do so now, and I hope that the Government will give the lead in it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that this debate must end at three minutes past 11 o'clock and that 10 hon. Members still wish to take part. Perhaps they would bear that in mind when making their speeches.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The House should not adjourn for the spring recess until it has had an opportunity to debate the consequences of the Government's strategy of insisting on considerable commercial and residential development in the south-east, which is to the grave detriment of the environment in that area, and equally detrimental to employment in the more depressed regions and to the Government's extremely popular and forward-looking inner city policy.
If I can illustrate from my county and constituency of east Berkshire the complete opposition to the Government's policy in this respect, that will provide a suitable microcosm for the south-east. When the central Berkshire structure plan was produced, it ensured that each planning authority in the area had five years' supply of building land. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, now my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, insisted through his Department that

land should be found for 8,000 extra houses. In my local authority area of Bracknell, 5,150 houses had to be found, and in the little village of Warfield, which has no more than 850 homes, 4,000 extra houses were to be foisted upon the community. It is no exaggeration to say that that community is being completely swamped. The area is used to massive development with the successful implementation of the policy for new towns, leading to the most successful of new towns — Bracknell. The area is blessed by being within the so—called golden triangle of the M3, the M4 and Heathrow airport, and it is therefore attractive to national and international companies that wish to set up or expand business in Britain.
However, we develop such areas at our peril. East Berkshire is being completely desecrated and the heritage of attractive countryside that we wish to pass to our children will perish for ever. The local people do not want large-scale development. Luckily, it is a prosperous area with low unemployment, at about 7 per cent. When I tell the House that in my heavy daily postbag it has been five months since I received a letter about unemployment, that will put matters in perspective. I am aware that for many hon. Members unemployment is a constant problem at their advice bureaux, in their constituencies and in their postbags. The foisting of this extra development on the south-east will be to the detriment of many areas that would welcome extra industry and development, which could alleviate their high unemployment.
In a free society which believes in local democracy we elect local councillors to the planning authority. If they represent an area with a low level of unemployment and if they want to maintain the environment they will allow only modest development. On the other hand, if those local councillors represent an area with a high level of unemployment and industrial degeneration they will go out of their way to encourage industry and developers and they will do everything possible to ensure that planning applications are successful. That is a far more realistic regional policy than spending vast sums of taxpayers' money trying to persuade companies to move to the regions. That policy would have a great deal of merit because it would please my constituents greatly and equally it would help many in the regions.
When he replies, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may well argue, as my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have argued previously, that in a free market we should within reason allow industrialists to set up wherever they want and that if we do not allow them to move to the golden triangle in the south-east national and international companies will set up abroad. I do not believe that argument. The very large number of multinationals in my constituency confirm to me that decisions as to whether they should set up in the United Kingdom or in other parts of Europe are made on a different basis. If they have decided that they will invest in the United Kingdom, they will go wherever they can easily get planning permission and where there is a ready supply of labour. Of course they will take account of the infrastructure, the motorway system, local airports, and so on.
The regeneration of inner cities, a policy approved of by all hon. Members, will not take place if developers are allowed to build on greenfield sites in the shire counties. In that case they will not build on inner city sites which cost more to develop and which will not be so saleable later. The money that we are rightly putting into the inner


cities is not being fully effective because there is much dereliction on large areas of inner city land. If we are allowed to refuse massive development in the shires, far more houses will be built in the inner cities.
We have a most unusual policy that is acting not only against the interests of the majority of the people who live in the south-east and who want to protect the small areas of countryside that are left, but also against many regions, one of which I used to represent and of which I had firsthand experience, where unemployment has risen rapidly and old industries have died. Those are the areas to which we should be encouraging the new multinationals and high technology companies to go. That same policy is acting against inner city development.
I do not want to be unduly critical of the Government or of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin), but if this policy reaches its logical conclusion I can foresee the time when there will be one long urban sprawl from London to Reading and almost to Bristol; there will be no countryside in the south and presumably there will be industrial wastelands in the midlands and in the north. That is not what Conservative philosophy is about. That is not in the best interests of our economy, our employment prospects or our environment. I have often pressed my right hon. Friend on this matter, and have always been encouraged to raise it on the Adjournment. I hope that he will take note of what I have said and will pass on my message to his colleagues in the Cabinet so that before it is too late the strategy is changed in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I shall try to be as brief as possible in raising a point about the mining dispute so that other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak in the debate.
The hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) spoke of the urban sprawl between Birmingham and London. If market forces dictate urban sprawls, the Government should not intervene. That is monetarism, market forces and the philosophical creed of the Tory party —

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Wrong.

Mr. Skinner: If I am wrong, the hon. Gentleman should tell the Prime Minister to do a U-turn—

Mr. Bowen Wells: Wrong again.

Mr. Skinner: Tory Members cannot stand it when someone tells them the truth.
I took offence at what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) said to the Leader of the House—although I am not here to defend that bloke. Indeed, he does not need that. However, when the hon. Gentleman says that the Leader of the House is not as competent as the Home Secretary or some other Minister to answer his question, that is stretching things too far. The Home Secretary compared with the Leader of the House is only a selling plater— [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] That is racing parlance. I thought Tories knew all about horse racing—

Mr. Bowen Wells: Wrong again.

Mr. Skinner: —and that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should tell us why he believes the House should not adjourn.

Mr. Skinner: It is not about selling plates, I can tell you that for sure, Mr. Speaker. I was simply picking up a couple of points made earlier—perhaps before you took the Chair. Some Tories are tipping the Leader of the House as the Crown prince to follow the Prime Minister when she decides to pack her bags in a couple of years or less—

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): What are the odds?

Mr. Skinner: The price on victory is odds-on and coming down quickly.
I want to fulfill my promise to the leader of the House and raise the question of the mining dispute. He encouraged me to raise it on the Adjournment. Another reason for raising the issue is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the leader of the Labour party, has not been altogether keen to obtain a debate. He has assured me that he has other irons in the fire—or some other appropriate clichéto deal with the matter. Roughly, that adds up to the possibility that serious initiatives are taking place behind the scenes, up the stairs or wherever. I am pleased that at long last something is being done to ensure that the Government—not for the first time—intervene in the matter.
It is not correct to say that the Government have hot intervened in the mining dispute. The Government started it by setting on MacGregor and giving him his terms of reference. That was clear intervention. They then sent 12,000 police to the coalfields. When people ask whether the Government will intervene, they should really ask whether they will intervene on the other side. They have already intervened to try to smash the National Union of Mineworkers.
I am fairly convinced that, as a result of the 10-week strike—and it looks as though it will continue for some considerable time yet, from my experience of rallies which I have addressed in areas where the strike is particularly strong — the Government should understand —[Interruption.] I accept that there are some black spots. We do not have them all out yet, but we will.
I hope that the Government do not think that they can build up confidence by saying that there is a six-months' stock and that that will defeat the NUM. Simple arithmetic shows that during the 19-week overtime ban that began last autumn between 8 million and 10 million tonnes of production were lost.
We have had 10 weeks of strike—some of Yorkshire has been out for 14 weeks — and whereas in normal times each week more than 2 million tonnes of coal are produced, production is now down to 400,000 tonnes a week. A rough calculation shows that we have between 26 million and 28 million tonnes of coal out of this year's annual production. That means that even if the strike ends tomorrow, which it will not, the NCB will start next winter with less coal than in most of the years since 1974. If the Tories do not understand what that means, they have not learnt any lessons since 1974.
I believe that the Government thought, as MacGregor thought, that the miners would last about three weeks and that the strike would splutter to a halt. Indeed, some of my


hon. Friends probably felt the same. It has not happened like that, and now the situation has changed dramatically on the question of stocks.
Some hon. Members have chided Arthur Scargill about his forecast some time ago of there being eight to 10 weeks' stocks. The rate of depletion at the time when he made that forecast—indeed, I made similar comments—was tremendous compared with the rate over the Easter period, when the temperature rose to 65 degrees. One must also remember what Sir Walter Marshall, chairman of the CEGB, said when addressing the energy committee of the parliamentary Labour party on Tuesday night. He explained that the Government could claim that coal stocks were greater than Arthur Scargill had forecast, first because the rate of depletion was not so strong in the summer, and secondly because the Government were spending an additional £20 million a week of taxpayers' money on importing dear oil to bolster stocks of coal. If the Government think that they can continue on that road and convince the British people that they are on the right track, they have another think coming.
The strike has already cost the British taxpayer £1·4 billion, not only in lost coal, but in the overhead costs of keeping the pits in being. Even in Nottinghamshire, with only half production, the total overheads of all the pits must continue to be met. I hope that the British taxpayers appreciate that Mrs. Thatcher — [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]— is prepared to spend that amount of their money on an exercise in revenge.
In 1981 she had to do a U-turn on her policy of shutting pits. She waited, and then she cut up one industry after another in salami fashion, picking them off one by one, including trying to smash the trade unions here, there and everywhere, and to some extent she got away with it. The miners decided that they would try to put a stop to it—[Interruption.]—by fighting for their jobs. This strike is not about politics. It is an honourable attempt to avoid more people being thrown on to the scrap heap.
I tabled a parliamentary question recently seeking information about the number of youths employed in the pits in the last five years. In 1979, the number of youngsters starting work for the first time in the mines was 6,320. Last year, fewer than 1,800 young lads started work in the pits. In five years the Prime Minister and her cohorts have brought about that massive reduction in opportunities for youngsters in the pits. That has happened before MacGregor's plan has started to take effect. When it does it will carve away another 20,000 jobs this year, and another 20,000 after that.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) should not try to kid the Kent miners into believing that they have a rosy future under MacGregor. It has been made clear by MacGregor and by those who run the gravy trains in the Common Market just what is likely to happen. The hon. Gentleman is not too happy about the EEC nowadays, although he was at one time. I have always been against it, as was the Leader of the House at one time. The EEC Commission made it clear some time ago that it wanted to cut out the peripheral coalfields in Britain, which means Kent, South Wales and Scotland. That is what it means, with probably the north-east brought in as well. That is what they are up to.
The other day I met some Kent coal miners down at West Drayton coal depot, where they have been successful

in stopping coal from being moved— a victory which was not reported in the Tory press. They told me that they realised that if the strike was lost, all the three pits in Kent would go as a result of the MacGregor axe being wielded.

Mr. Aitken: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on only one thing. The EEC has no bearing on the future of Kent or any other pits, and that is an irrelevancy. He said that the Kent pits were threatened, but will he accept—he should do so because this is the truth—that the Kent pits are not, and never have been, on any closure list, real or imaginary? However, the Kent pits will be closed if miners continue to inflict self-made wounds by continuing the strike.

Mr. Skinner: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, it was only a few months ago that the Kent miners had to put up a fight to save one of their pits, when Snowdown was threatened by the NCB. It was not the management but the NUM which put forward proposals to ensure the survival of Snowdown. As a result of the NUM efforts—it was nothing to do with the Government or the NCB—that pit was not closed. The miners know, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that if the closure policy were based on sheer economics and the accountancy of the NCB, the Kent coalfield would be threatened. I do not want to go any further than that, but I think the hon. Gentleman knows what I am talking about.
I am confident of victory, because the Government are now panicking. They are introducing new DHSS guidelines to try to starve the miners' kids. Every voucher or every little bit of food that the kids get from friends and families or from the hardship funds will be taken into account when the DHSS calculates how much money the families should get. At the current rate, according to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who went to see the Minister for Social Security, families of miners on strike are being paid £30 a week less than the families of those who are unemployed and £40 a week less than families of murderers in prison.
It is a sign of panic and frenzy when the Government get down to the vicious and vindictive level of attacking little kids and trying to take the bread out of their mouths. They have another think coming, because such behaviour only solidifies the attitudes of those on strike. The Government are also showing signs of panic by tipping off the chief constable of Nottingham to enforce feudal riot laws which have hardly ever been used before. That shows that the Government are trying desperately, through these various ways, to attack the miners to try to stop them in their honourable desire to save jobs.
The DHSS guidelines are being used to attack families, but upstairs at this moment, on the Finance Bill Committee, hon. Members are discussing a proposal by which the Tory Government will allow those who send their kids to Eton to get £20,000 tax free from their employers to pay for their education. That is the kind of contrast and double standards that the Government operate.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South spoke about pit deterioration. He is on to a point, but he did not quite finish it. In 1974, the miners won a historic victory, about which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will know as he was not always with the Prime Minister of the day at that time, but I shall not go into that. One reason why that victory was secured was that all the equipment


below the ground belonged to other people, not to the miners. Many years after the long hot summer of 1926 my father told me that the miners lost because all the equipment down the pits—the hammers, shovels, picks and so on—belonged to the miners, not to the private owners. Now, as in 1972, all that expensive equipment belongs to the companies who supply the mining equipment and the NCB, and some of it is insured heavily by various insurance companies in Britain. It is they who are squealing because they fear the risk to their precious possessions from the deterioration in the pits.
What is more, the management also knows that their jobs are on the line. They are fighting for their jobs. When jobs are worth more than £20,000 a year, people are prepared to fight for them. That is why they are running to MacGregor and asking him to call the dogs off and saying, "Let us have a halt to it. Let us start with a fresh sheet of paper." That is what they said down at Hobart house the other day. The management there have a job to keep behind the desks. They do not want to lose them.
I am confident, because I know what happened in 1972. The Government can make up their minds about whether they move MacGregor this week, next week or in a months' time, but one thing is certain. We will win this battle, just as we won in 1972 and 1974. We shall pave the way for a victory so that the nurses get a better deal, as will the teachers and all the other groups that have been hammered unmercifully by the Government. It will be a victory for the unemployed as well.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Let me alter the tempo of the debate slightly. I want to mention the inspector's report into the inquiries into Stansted airport and terminal 5 at Heathrow which is due to be presented to Ministers in the summer, according to a recent parliamentary answer which I received. I am not quite sure what is meant by the summer, but it is obviously fairly soon now.
The House is entitled to know how the Government intend to handle that important report. We are entitled to ask when the House will see the report and whether there will be a debate. It is reasonable that we should know whether the debate will be on the report or on a Government decision relating to the report.
Let me remind the House of what was said at the outset of the whole procedure. On 21 February 1980 the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
We intend the public inquiry to be wide-ranging and to give objectors an opportunity not only to expand on their objections to the Stansted proposal but also to question the need for a major airport expansion anywhere and to put forward alternative sites.
— [Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 701.]
That remark implied that the inquiry would go far wider than the scope of a normal planning inquiry; and, in practice, it did so. The inspector was quite explicitly given far wider terms of reference than is normally done—in fact, words such as width, breadth, and scope were used. Every evocative word imaginable was used to assure us at the outset about the openness, fairness and wide range of the inquiry. Not even the colour of my grandmother's old tin trunk was excluded if it could be shown to be relevant.
Those assurances were reinforced time and time again in the inquiry. For example, on day 41 when Mr. T. G. Harris of the Department of Trade was being cross-examined by the inspector the inspector asked:

There is a difference, though, is there not, between my situation here and the situation of the Inspectors at Heathrow and Gatwick in that the major potential policy implications are the more present here?
Mr. Harris replied:
That is perfectly true, and I think that was in the nature of the Government's original statement on this issue, when the Government said it would arrange a wide-ranging public inquiry and it made it very clear at the outset that alternatives could be put forward and the way in which that has developed at this particular inquiry so that you have very clearly defined alternatives which are put before you does make it of a different order of public inquiry from those two.
I contend that this inquiry is almost specially unique. Bearing that in mind, and the feelings of my constituents, who have twice been put through the hoop of public inquiries, and the principle of open government, to which I am sure we all subscribe, I asked the Government recently for an assurance that the report would be published before a decision was made on it. I am afraid that that has caused the smiles to fade from those reassuring ministerial faces that one saw in 1979 and 1980. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said to me in a letter of 17 February:
These inquiries are being dealt with on the basis of standard planning procedures.
This is a different tack.
The procedures provide for the publication of the Inspector's report at the same time as the decision letter is sent out (as embodied in the Inquiries Procedure Rules). This timing reflects the need to ensure that there is no discussion of the report prior to the"—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Adjournment (Spring) and the County Courts Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Major.]

Adjournment (Spring)

Question again proposed

Mr. Haselhurst: The letter continued:
—Secretary of State's decision which could give rise to new evidence which has not been made available for comment by other interested parties.
I believe that it is well proved that there is nothing normal about the procedures that have been applied to these inquiries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne continued:
I realise that other aspects of civil aviation policy are likely to be debated in public over the coming months but there are matters that should be kept separate from the decisions on the planning applications.
I find that one of the more incredible statements that could have been issued on this subject.
If there is a worry in the Government's mind about the quasi-judicial nature of Ministers, surely it has been shown that the Government could be affecting the policy that would flow from their final decision on the inspector's report by some of the other things that they are doing.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a decision bearing upon the airports policy when he announced last week—to the surprise, it is reported, of the Select Committee on Transport—that the Government have decided that the airports within the British Airports Authority would not be privatised separately. No one could deny that in certain circumstances this could have a crucial effect on the kind of decision which should be made about airports policy.
The problem of the limit on air traffic movements at Heathrow is a worrying one for the Government, as the limit has now been reached, even before terminal 4 is open for business. If the Government were to change their mind about the air traffic movements limits at some time or another, the fact could have been crucial to the inspector who heard the Stansted and Heathrow inquiries in determining the parameters within which he could work and recommend to Government.
I am worried that the Government are allowing themselves to be hemmed in, and that options are being extinguished, while other options are deliberately not being pursued which could have a decisive effect upon this important issue. This matter has a national perspective, as many hon. Members representing northern constituencies are vitally concerned in what will happen.
I am also worried about the possibility of leaks. I know that it is unsatisfactory to have to mention that, but we live in the real world, and we know that we cannot place reliability on the fact that reports, once they are in the Department's hands, will stay sancrosanct. If these things get out into a highly charged atmosphere in which my constituents, and the constituents of hon. Members who represent areas around Heathrow, will be disturbed to read half-baked stories in the press, how will that affect the quasi—judicial nature of the position of Ministers, if people want to make comments on what they read in the press?
I think that we are being asked, as Members of Parliament, not to press the substance of the case that the inspector has heard. My right hon. Friends say to me that they hardly dare to be seen talking to me, in case their position has been improved. That position is not affecting the British Airports Authority. Its public relations has gone on unabated during the lifetime of this Parliament. I understand that it has a considerable interest in this matter. It is possible to lobby Parliament. Can it not be satisfied that its presentation to the inquiry was sufficient to make its case, if it is a good one?

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is highly political, and that by lobbying the House in the way that it has done the British Airports Authority has shown it to be a highly political issue in which its own survival is involved? It would behove the Government to take it as such, and to hold a debate in the House so that all political opinions can be expressed and the Government can be wiser before taking a decision on the matter.

Mr. Haselhurst: I take that point absolutely. It worries me that hardly a day passes without the BAA seeking to influence Members of Parliament on this issue. I am told that it is hardly possible to go to a reception in central London and not find a member of the BAA popping out from behind a pillar to put its point of view. One colleague tells me that he was in receipt of hospitality during five consecutive weeks. It would not surprise me if the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship was invited to go on a helicopter trip to Stansted to pray in all the churches affected.
The latest thing to happen—as hon. Members will be aware—is that a little yellow ticket has slipped through our letterboxes. Attention was drawn to that in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. When asked why the BAA had

given all Members of Parliament a free pass to its airport car park and whether it was to do with Stansted becoming London's third airport, an official said:
Good heavens no. We are merely offering these facilities because MPs do such an important job.
I can only hope that that pass has not been sent to the Ministers who have responsibility, in their quasi-judicial positions, for considering such matters. There must be a very thin line between influencing the House properly and overstepping the mark. That must be considered very carefully. If the local authorities concerned with this issue were spending money on the scale of the BAA, I suspect that the Government would be down on them like a ton of bricks for wasting public money. The BAA cannot escape responsibility for that.
As the Government come to make up their mind about the handling of the report, they should bear in mind—whether they intend to recommend Stansted, terminal 5 or something else—the words used in the House by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr.Shore) on 6 March 1978. I do not often quote members of the Opposition Front Bench approvingly, but, when speaking about Windscale, he said:
I have, however, been conscious of the strong, widespread and proper desire of right hon. and hon. Members to debate the broad issues of national and international significance which I asked the inspector to examine before a decision is made. I believe that great benefit to our democracy would flow from such a debate. This case is, indeed, unique in the issues which it raises, and I have therefore decided to proceed in a way that will enable the House to have such a debate and to be involved in this major decision.
To do so I must take an unusual course. We want a debate in which Ministers could take a full part and which would lead on to a decision without running into a protracted further process of consultation and possibly the need to reopen the inquiry. I think that this aim would be generally agreed. To achieve it, I must first dispose of the planning application in the other manner which, I am advised, will be consistent with my objective. This will be done in the form of a refusal to grant planning permission on the present application.
However, subject to the debate which my right hon. Friend will arrange before Easter, I propose to lay before Parliament shortly afterwards a special development order under Section 24 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971".
My right hon. Friend now Secretary of State for Defence, but then speaking for the Opposition, said:
That must be right." —[0fficial Report, 6 March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 981.]
Indeed, that must be the right way for the House to handle this most unique inquiry of national significance. I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure us tonight that the House of Commons will be allowed to play its full and rightful part in the determination of this difficult issue.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The House should not adjourn until the Government give a firm commitment to do all that they can to expedite a decision on when the M40 extension from Oxford to Birmingham will be constructed.
For many years the people of Banbury, north Oxfordshire and the whole of the west midlands have been awaiting the construction of the M40 extension. My predecessor in the House, Sir Neil Marten, was promised a Banbury bypass as a matter of urgency way back in 1959, when he first entered the House.
If hon. Members go into the Library and take any volume of Hansard at random between 1959 and the present day they will find Oxfordshire Members asking questions about when the M40 would be built.
I shall mention a random selection. In 1976 the Minister for Transport said:
Proposals for this important link will be continued to be developed over the next few years."—[0fficial Report, 3 March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 607.]
In 1977 the Under-Secretary of State said:
My right hon. Friend does not now expect to make an announcement until the autumn."—[Official Report, 13 July 1977; Vol. 935, c. 174.]
An answer which is a gem of its kind because it is short, succinct and tells one everything that one knew beforehand —which I intend to frame and send to the Secretary of State—reads:
My right hon. Friend is still considering this matter and will make an announcement as soon as he has reached a decision." —[Official Report, 26 October 1977; Vol. 936, c. 823.]
The delay continued and in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) the Minister said:
My right hon. Friend will make an announcement as soon as he can. We regret the continuing delay."—[Official Report, 14 December 1977; Vol. 941, c. 492.]
In desperation, the then leader of the Cherwell district council, Councillor Les Tustian, wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport saying:
Since 1974 my council has been consistent in its strong support of the proposed extension of the M40 through this District in the firm belief that it is essential both to relieve existing severe traffic problems and to provide the improved communications vital for the planned growth of the area.
He was rescued by the Conservatives winning the 1979 general election. We all thought that things would start to move. They did. The Department of Transport published its preferred route and a public inquiry took place. The inspector completed the inquiry in the summer of last year.
The first thing that I did on being elected a Member of the House was to write to the Secretary of State for Transport asking him about the proposed timetable. My hon. Friend the Minister of State replied that she anticipated that the inspector would take about six months. She stated:
The M40 is, of course, one of our priority schemes and I can assure you that we will make every effort to bring the necessary statutory procedures to completion in the shortest possible time span.
The people of north Oxfordshire want assurances that the M40 is one of the Government's priorities and that they will make every effort to bring the necessary statutory procedures to completion in the shortest possible time. An estimate of six months has been given, which would have taken us to early this year, but a couple of weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State for Transport for a future estimate. I was staggered to discover that he had yet to receive the inspector's report.
The delay in making a firm decision is causing concern in north Oxfordshire. The position was succinctly explained by the present leader of the district council Councillor Charles Shouler, in a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport on 3 April this year. He said:
I understand that you will be receiving the inspector's report on the M40 public inquiry in the near future. May I implore you to consider the report and announce your decision as quickly as possible consistent with proper consideration. The proposals for this section were initially placed before the public in 1974. The resulting delay and frustration have long since passed the point that is acceptable.
The Oxfordshire Structure Plan and the local plans for Banbury and Bicester indicate considerable growth in population and employment in the two towns. The success of these policies is extremely dependent on the provision of the M40 extension; also the relief that will be afforded the many villages on the present through county routes is long overdue.

We look to you for a positive and urgent conclusion to this Inquiry as the future of North Oxfordshire will be determined by the decision as to when the M40 will be constructed.
I look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to give positive and urgent consideration to the inspector's report. It is certain that the sooner the M40 is completed, the better it will be for the west midlands and north Oxfordshire. The M40 will relieve at least 50 communities in Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire of much unwelcome traffic. The M40 will speed the transit of goods between the west midlands, north Oxfordshire and the Channel ports. It will encourage more visitors to explore the west midlands and north Oxfordshire by making the area more accessible. It will complete the basic motorway network, which Britain needs to stay abreast of road developments in competing with industrialised countries. The M40 will bring more benefits to the people of the west midlands, Warwickshire and Oxfordshire than any single improvement since William Morris and Herbert Austin brought prosperity to the midlands. Before the House adjourns, I should like to hear the Government's firm commitment that they will do all that they can to speed the progress of this motorway.

Mr. Dave Nellist: I contend that the House should not go on holiday until it has debated fully and properly the Government's role in attacking the National Union of Mineworkers and attempting to destroy the coal mining industry. I wish to put the case for well over 1,000 Warwickshire miners who have been on strike for many weeks. I shall attempt to outline the Government's role in appointing the angel of death MacGregor, firstly to British Leyland to sack Derek Robinson and other shop stewards in the motoring industry and then to the steel industry to sacrifice 80,000 jobs, and now the Government have politically appointed him to attack the mining industry, especially the NUM.
Why, in 10 weeks of a dispute, have the Government authorised the facility for about 2,500 miners to be incarcerated in police cells following their arrest during picketing — 1,908 in England and Wales and 512 in Scotland? About 2,500 workers were arrested trying to defend their jobs. It is not true that, despite the hardships caused by 10 weeks of the dispute, with soup kitchens in Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Scotland and south Wales and Kent—and all the other coal areas—that there is any softening in the miners' mood. The Government should be aware that the attitude of the mineworkers to this dispute is hardening. The miners realise that if MacGregor chucks the "Plan for Coal" out of the window, the plan for dole he is implementing will mean not just setting back the industry five or 50 years. If he cuts 4 million tonnes from coal production during the next 12 months, less coal will be produced in Britain than was produced in 1864, 120 years ago. That is the scale of the reversal that has been planned with this attack.
The Government might claim in their reply, as they have often done before from the Dispatch Box, that they have a policy of non-intervention. The Government have intervened. In the past five years, the Government have closed 46 pits and 40,000 jobs have been lost that would otherwise perhaps have gone to youngsters.
The Government have doubled the coal stocks, as they did in 1972 before the strike then in an attempt to prepare


for starving the miners out. Last year alone, it has cost the National Coal Board more then £200 million in interest charges to finance the operation of doubling the coal stocks. Instead of giving that coal to the pensioners in winter—each winter 50,000 people die from hypothermia, because there is insufficient food and fuel to maintain their body temperature — coal is stockpiled at the pitheads and power stations in preparation for a dispute. The Government are prepared for disputes also with legislation deeming those on strike to be receiving £15 per week in strike pay, and they have, therefore cut £15 per week from the benefits of the families of striking miners. The Government are now deducting the cost of food donations given to the miners, thereby attempting to starve them back to work.
In recent days, we have heard that there is not sufficient money to give decent rates of pay to nurses, teachers and mineworkers, but the Government have found sufficient money, in another form of preparation for the dispute, to buy the loyalty of the police. Police pay has increased this year by 8·4 per cent. —double what the Government reckoned was the going rate for other parts of the public service.
The Government are spending £100,000 a day in Warwickshire trying to ensure that the strike is weakened. Nationally, tens of millions of pounds are spent on the dispute. Special forms have been introduced in Nottinghamshire so that, when coppers arrest blokes on the motorway or on the picket lines, the police do not even have to think politically about their reasons but have a special line prepared in a form for the arresting officer to sign. Even the Police Federation regards that form as a piece of "politicised verbiage". The federation welcomes the fact that some policemen do not like being told by the Government what they should be thinking about the coal dispute. The police have set up a national reporting centre on the 13th floor of the Scotland Yard building—there is intervention. In April 1972, after one of the major defeats of the Tories by the miners, especially after the Saltley gates incident, the Government were preparing for the next dispute. Pass laws have been brought in in Nottingham and Kent. The Government have used Boeing 737s to fly coppers from Manchester to Nottingham. Those pass laws must make Zola Budd feel at home, now that South African laws have been brought into Britain.
The Government have intervened with the largest police operation this century in an attempt to break the NUM. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, they will not succeed. The miners have taken on the Tories on three occasions and have managed to defeat them—1972, 1974 and 1981 —and the Tories will lose again at the end of the current dispute.
The Prime Minister is seeking revenge. That is why she has ordered that 2,500 miners be locked up and the dusting off of the Riot Act, which can mean unlimited fines and unlimited sentences for those who are charged under it. She thinks that if she can break the National Union of Mineworkers all the other trade unions will follow. She thinks also that the lack of support from the leadership of the TUC for the National Graphical Association's members and the members of the Civil and Public Services Association at Cheltenham means that the working class is weakened.
The miners' dispute shows that that is not so. The overwhelming majority of miners have been out for the past three months. The House will recall that Mr. MacGregor said at the beginning of the dispute that he would like to hear from the miners' wives. We do not hear him saying that now. Miners' wives support groups are working in Warwickshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and in every section of the coalfield.
The Tories have written off women for far too long. They reckon that they can use them only by sticking them in television programmes — the one or two who are misguidedly asking their lads to go back to work—and allowing them to serve their own purposes. The miners' wives have shown how working class women can organise. They are gaining the growing support of workers nationally.
We are seeing the exposure of the transparently thin arguments of the National Coal Board and the Tories. I have heard Ministers talking about investment in the industry and claiming that it is £2 million a day. The miners are realising that for every £2 million a day that goes into the industry, £2·2 million has to be forked out to meet interest charges on loans to the Government. Most of the NCB's losses in recent years have stemmed from interest charges, which have amounted to £1,200 million over the past four years.
The miners are seeing through the argument about coal being expensive. The European Commission has said that it is cheaper to mine coal in Britain than in Belgium, France or Germany. It has been proved that the subsidy that is given to the British coal industry is a third of that which is provided in Germany and only a fifth of the subsidy that is made available in France and Belgium.
Tory Members do not have to believe me. They do not need to believe the European Commission or the Select Committee in another place that considers these matters. I suggest that they read in this morning's edition of the Daily Mail about those bastions of Tory privilege where most of the members of the Cabinet have received their primary and secondary education in recent years. They should read the magazine which has been produced by the young Tories at Harrow, in which it is argued that
Britain's coal is expensive only because it is less subsidised than coal in Europe.
It is argued in the magazine that
Britain's miners have been forced to take a rigid stance and have the courage to stand up for what they continue to believe in.
Poor old Eton might have been considered to be a second line of defence for the Tory Cabinet. However, the Eton College Chronicle, according to the Daily Mail, advises Arthur Scargill to
sit tight and let the Tory Government destroy itself with its poor economic record.
The Government seem to be getting not very much support from the kids at Eton and Harrow.
I have been in this place for 11 months, and to me the miners' dispute has revealed the two faced nature of the Government even more clearly than previous events.
Only four weeks ago the Foreign Secretary was proudly promising freedom of the press, of travel, of speech and from arbitrary arrest. In fact he was telling us that those freedoms would be maintained in Hong Kong when it is handed over to China in 1997. Does he intend to export those rights from Britain? Those rights, which have been won by the working class over the past two centuries, are being attacked by the Government and removed from the


people. That is the only method that they can find of trying to solve the crisis of the capitalist economy. They want to take a larger share of the wealth that is created by working people and place it in the wallets of the rich.
In the words of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Government intend to "neuter" the trade unions, to reduce wages and to transfer wealth to the rich. Miners are drawing that conclusion. That is why an increasing number are joining the Labour party and are making the dispute a political issue. They are joining the Labour party's campaigns that are designed to force the Government into an early general election. If there is an early election and a Labour Government are elected, that Administration will be prepared to tackle the problems of industry. We shall then be able to look towards a real plan for coal, a four-day week and retirement at 50, for example, so workers like my grandad do not die from "the lung" in the early 50s. We could give proper jobs to the youngsters coming out of school. Let us have real investment, when we eliminate interest charges through public ownership of the banks and private leeches like Dowty's and all the rest of the private firms that supply equipment.
Coal reserves in this country are at 45 billion tonnes. We deserve—working people deserve—the right to plan that industry in conjunction with workers making other forms of energy such as oil, electricity and gas. The dispute, when it has been won, will have raised the political consciousness of many working people and exposed the Tory Government for what it is. It reinforces my hope that a Labour Government will be back in the House in the not too distant future.

Mr. David Harris: I certainly do not have the time at my disposal to answer all the claptrap that we have heard in the past few minutes from the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I want to concentrate instead on a subject that is undoubtedly uppermost in the minds of those in the rural community in all parts of the country, especially in the area that I represent. I shall deal with the quotas that help to control the overproduction of milk throughout the European Community as much as in this country.
I am grateful for the opportunity to press my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a statement to be made on one aspect of the matter before the House rises for the recess. What measures, if any, will be taken—I believe that some will be taken—to soften the impact of those quotas on the small farmers, who truly deserve some special treatment?
Let me make my position clear. I have been a Member of the European Parliament for the past five years, a post that I shall soon relinquish. I have been calling, certainly in the past three years, for measures to contain and control the overproduction of milk.
I am not one of those who take the simplistic view that overproduction of milk is always carried out by farmers outside this country or, indeed, outside my area. I commend to the House an excellent speech made very early on Wednesday morning by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He pointed out that in this country alone under the intervention stores there are 144 days supply of butter and 692 days supply of skimmed milk powder, which has been produced by British farmers and not by the French. I shall

quote figures from my part of the world, the counties of Devon and Cornwall. Over the past three years milk production in those counties has increased by 150 million litres.
I am not apportioning blame in the matter. Indeed, I have the greatest sympathy for the farmers because they were responding in many ways to encouragement from certain quarters.

Mr. Maclennan: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is not apportioning blame to any quarter, but does he not think it reasonable to attribute particular blame to both Conservative Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who have been promoting the production of milk for increased manufactured products?

Mr. Harris: No doubt, if we had arrived at a position where quotas were levied at present production levels, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (1vIr. Maclennan) would have been the first to attack Conservative Ministers of Agriculture for not ensuring that our production had increased over the intervening years. It is so easy to apportion blame. I shall not do so, certainly not against the farmers. We must face up to this situation. If we do not do so, the measures needed to, bring production under control will be even more harsh in the years to come, so we have to do it now.
Letters that I have received from the small farmers in my area, which Members of Parliament for every rural constituency must have received, make the case for special treatment for that sector. I was most heartened by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State at columns 340 and 341 of the Official Report when he made it clear that the Government were considering some means of softening the impact for the smaller farmer.
My purpose is to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether he can give some assurance that there will be a statement on this before the House rises for the recess.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: This debate provides one of the very few opportunities to discuss the security services.
The recent death of Mr. Dennis Skinner in Moscow has posed a number of questions that are unlikely to be answered because of the obsessive secrecy surrounding the security services and because we have not managed to achieve any measure of parliamentary control over MIS or MI6, although in the United States there are Congressional committees which supervise the security services.
I wish to talk not about MI6 but about MI5, an organisation which celebrates its 75th anniversary this year, has a staff of about 2,000 and works closely with 'the special branch, which effectively adds a further 1,800 people to the type of operation conducted.
The general reasons for wanting parliamentary control are obvious. Members of Parliament must have some say about the aims and priorities of our security services, the methods that they use and the costs involved. I cannot prove all the facts that I intend to cite, but I believe that they are reasonably reliable.
The charter of MI5 is concerned particularly with monitoring "subversion", which is defined as
an attempt to overthrow or undermine democracy by political, industrial or violent means.


Many of its targets are the peace movement, trade unions and, dare I suggest it, even Members of Parliament, though doubtless more Labour than Conservative Members.
I cite just a few examples. Section F2 is concerned with investigating trade unions. Section F6 runs informers and infiltrators into trade unions. Section F7 deals with a mixed bag of "subversives", including lawyers, journalists and peace activists.
The MI5 registry contains dossiers on some 500,000 people. Assuming the inclusion of some 16,000 Communist party members, perhaps 50,000 members of other so-called extreme groups and perhaps a further 68,000 names to cover all civil servants who are positively vetted, that still leaves about 350,000 names unaccounted for. Who are those people, and why is it necessary to include them in the dossiers? That is not to say, of course, that we accept that it is right and proper that the former groups should be included.
One of my main concerns is the disrespect for the law shown by our security services. I shall leave aside activities in Northern Ireland, which merit a separate debate, and confine my comments to Britain. Subsection Al of MI5 is concerned with collecting three types of information, which is usually obtained in association with burglary or illegal entry of premises.
The terms used are picturesque. "Source cinnamon" is concerned with planting a bug in a telephone or junction box. "Source azure" is concerned with planting bugs in private rooms. "Source still life" is concerned with photographing membership of political or other organisations. Indeed, many of the entries in the files begin with a photograph of the membership card of the organisation to which the individual belongs.
Those activities are frequently carried out in association with the special branch. Sometimes plumbers, meter men or other workmen are used, but illegal entry is also practised. In recent years, many organisations have been surprised—until they discoved the cause—when break-ins occurred in which documents were interfered with but nothing was taken. The list of organisations that have complained about this is very long indeed.
I now turn to the frontier of legality for records and files. There are many records — Government records, Department of Health and Social Security records in Newcastle, records of general practitioners in Southport and local authorities' records. I contend that the security forces have access to them and make use of them.
I have touched only on the tip of the iceberg. Recently many matters have come to light which must worry all hon. Members. I cannot see why Parliament cannot have some control over the security services—even if it were through a Committee which met in secret. We have a right to know what is being done on our behalf and in our name. I suspect that quite frequently even Ministers are not kept fully informed. The demand for this sort of parliamentary scrutiny will continue until it is met. It is a reasonable request, and I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to it.

Mr. Alan Williams: I have rarely heard so unprovoked and unfair an attack on a Minister by a member of his party as that by the hon. Member for

Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I was shocked to hear him say that the Leader of the House was incapable of replying to the debate. I was shocked, not because I thought that his comments were inaccurate, but because it was unreasonable of him to think that he was the only hon. Member who thought that the right hon. Gentleman would answer the debate in the first place. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not worried by these assaults from what should be friendly quarters.
The debate has been intriguingly wide ranging. The representations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), as ever, on behalf of his constituents and those made by the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) made a fascinating syllogy. They spoke from two opposite extremes of prosperity and continued to show the flaws in a Bill which is being debated and will probably be on Report after the recess. It sets out the framework for the Government's new regional policy.
The hon. Gentleman was correct to say that there was a misunderstanding about regional policy, because it is not just assisted area policy. It is not, it never was and it never should be. The need to regenerate the old industrial areas, such as Stoke, is compatible with the need to avoid the over-congestion in housing, schools and hospitals, which would arise in the south-east of England if the market forces—so adulated by the Leader of the House and his colleagues of the monetarist school—were allowed to operate as the Government wish. I was intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Berkshire, East. My right hon. Friend should examine what the hon. Gentleman said for ammunition for future speeches on behalf of his constituency. I do not intend to be patronising, but I found his contribution thoughtful and helpful.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made an intriguing intervention. Hon. Members will know of the extent of his expertise in industrial relations. I suspect that he is better acquainted with the soiree than with the pitface. Nevertheless it was interesting to hear him talk about the problems of the coal industry. I know that the hon. Gentleman reads avidly in his spare time, and so I recommend that he reads schedule 6 of the Donovan report, which deals with the Government's experiences with Kent miners in wartime. It is fascinating reading, and I only wish that I had had time to obtain a copy of it from the Library. It is hilarious and ominous, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to read it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) rightly said that the Government should intervene in the coal dispute. Some could argue that the Government have already intervened too much by appointing Mr. MacGregor as chairman of the National Coal Board, because there is little doubt about what the chairman's remit was when he took over his responsibilities. The Government should remember that what looks tempting politically can sometimes turn out to be a dangerous game. I say that as someone sponsored by the Transport Salaried Staffs Association, and I do not wish there to be a confusion of interest here. There is an interesting coincidence of events emerging at present, where at the same time as the Government are fighting the mining unions, they are lining up on a different issue for a fight with the rail unions. It is not a sympathy fight, like that with the miners, but is a struggle with regard to industrial relations in the railway industry. I ask Conservative


Members to consider whether they relish the thought of fighting on both fronts. Perhaps the Government are playing a game that they will come to regret.
Hon. Members had some sport in pulling my hon. Friend's leg about his figures for coal stocks. However, some of them, including the Leader of the House, will recollect that in late 1973 and 1974 the late Maurice Macmillan came to the House and gave figures on coal stocks which we subsequently showed to be incorrect. I do not suggest that it was done deliberately, but it happened. There is a great area for dispute between the figures for coal on the ground, and stocks that are useable, effective and practical. Do not be deceived by the fact that there are great mountains of coal. The coal must be in the right place, and that comes back to my point about the struggle with the transport unions.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) mentioned the increase of drug abuse, which was fascinating to me since I used to be Opposition spokesman on Civil Service matters. I remember warning the Home Secretary and the Department of Trade, as it then was, of the hazards of cutting the Customs and Excise staff, and pointing out that it was becoming almost impossible to carry out meaningful checks on ships coming into Britain. What the hon. Gentleman said vindicated the warnings that we gave to Ministers then.
It was unfair of the hon. Member for Orpington—I did not refer to him earlier in a derogatory way, and it is not my role to protect members of another party—to say that the case of someone being incarcerated unnecessarily and wrongly for seven years in an institution such as Rampton is such a horrifying prospect that no hon. Member is justified in using this opportunity to bring it to the attention of the House. He was wrong—

Mr. Stanbrook: It is a matter of finding a suitable opportunity. The suitable opportunity for raising such a complaint is when a Minister can be present to listen and reply to the accusations, so clearly it would have been better to raise the matter on the Adjournment rather than to use this debate.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be consistent in his criticism, he should criticise his hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), who I thought made an excellent and interesting constituency speech on the Stansted issue, and the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, both of whom attacked the policies of Ministers who were not here to listen to the debate. By all means level the criticism, but at least be even-handed and recognise that Conservative Members are guilty of the same offence.

Mr. Haselhurst: It is reasonable to point out that the burden of my remarks was to ask the Leader of the House that a debate be arranged on that matter.

Mr. Williams: I am sure it was. But the hon. Gentleman was also expressing a fear that there were likely to be leaks from the same Minister whom he wanted here to deal with the debate and from his officials. I am not making a malicious point against the hon. Gentleman, because it was a good speech. All I am trying to do is point out the inconsistency of the position taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington.
I want to revert to an issue which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman expected me to raise again. He will

recollect that when we were debating the Easter Adjournment I made a reasoned presentation of the events in relation to Oman and asked whether the rules about ministerial conduct needed to be revised. I put it to him that we should consider an inquiry into the relevance of the rules in the light of recent experience. In his answer, in column 1246 of Hansard of 5 April, the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to indicate that he felt that there was validity in the point I had made and that the rules might need to be updated, although, in fairness to him, he said that the time would have to be chosen so that the matter could be dealt with with objectivity.
We are now many weeks beyond that debate and it is reasonable for the House to say that we have been through a rather strange experience with the Prime Minister on this affair. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for five months we tried to get a simple yes or no to the question: did she or did she not know of her son's commercial involvement? I am left at this stage with an absolute conviction which I did not start with; I started with an open mind. I invite the hon. Member for Berkshire, East, who is smiling, to read all the irrelevant answers that the Prime Minister has given to specific questions, including the transcript of the "Panorama" broadcast. The conclusion one comes to is that after five months of weaving, dodging and evasion—

Mr. Stanbrook: Muck raking.

Mr. Williams: If I wanted to muck-rake I would be talking about Taiwan, not Oman. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know more about that, that is another matter. We are not muck raking; I will not accept that allegation. There is a different story to be told if we want to muck-rake.
For five months the Prime Minister has dodged and evaded a simple question. That means that the Minister who has the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether something is or is not in contravention of the rules in relation to the conduct of Ministers is herself gravely in breach of those rules and is flatly refusing to do anything about it. Therefore, before we rise for the recess the Leader of the House should give a clear indication of when he intends to initiate an inquiry into the relevance of the rules relating to the conduct of Ministers.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): This has been a wide-ranging debate. God willing, I shall touch upon each contribution. To start with the speech of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I must disappoint him. I have no intention of taking further my comments on the question of Oman and what deductions one might draw from that incident.
In respect of the other points that were made this evening, I shall, of course, have all the speeches referred to the relevant Ministers where that is appropriate. If I do not say so in response to individual contributions, I hope that the House will bear in mind that that is my intent.
I shall start, as the right hon. Member for Swansea, West did, with speeches of constituency or regional character touching upon regional policy. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) argued that inner area status should be granted to Stoke to enable


us to deal with the problems of industrial change and in particular the consequences of the decline in the traditional industries of the potteries, coal mining and tyres.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) argued for a review of regional policy for the south-east that would resist an unattractive inflow of industry. I shall not parody what he had to say, but some might have thought that it sounded rather like, "Keep our villages for stockbrokers."

Mr. John Home Robertson: Estate agents.

Mr. Biffen: Bijou estate agents.
It is unwise to go down the path of believing that it lies within the capacity of Government either to deliver a desirable rate of economic change or to withhold a rate of economic change. Of course Government policies are interventionist, and have been for decades, but for that to give rise to the expectation that there can be a frustration of the usual location of activity is unwise.
The speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) caused a modicum of controversy in what otherwise is always an immensely festive occasion. I appreciated that he informed me that he would seek to raise the subject, and realised by the very nature of his communication that he did not expect me to give a definitive answer to his measured and serious accusations. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am sure that there will be other occasions when the matter comes before the House.
To say in relation to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) that Stansted is a constituency interest would be the under-statement of all time. He is proving every bit as formidable an exponent of his constituents' interests as was the late Sir Peter Kirk. I took great interest in what my hon. Friend said and I noted his points about the timing and scope of any debate. I shall ensure that the relevant Ministers are informed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke with feeling about the M40 and the Banbury bypass. I know the feeling well because the Oswestry bypass similarly appears to have acquired a measured status in the archives in the Department of Transport — although happily our bypass will eventually go forward. [Interruption.] On such occasions I must get in a few references to my constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend will be as favoured as I have been.
Clearly the debate has been very much influenced by the considerations of the miners' strike. It has demonstrated that the House is well able to have a debate on the subject without the formal rubric on the Order Paper. It also shows why the more Establishment creatures in this place are quite happy that it should be left to these evening hours than to occupy prime time. It has been a splendidly vigorous debate, albeit in limited form.
The Government's position was put fairly by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). There is nothing extraordinary about it. It is fully within the philosophy of "Plan for Coal" that we should move towards the era of an industry based upon low-cost coal production. Of course, in the process of change interests are affected. As the most important interests are those

expressed in individual terms, the individual redundancy arrangement is far more important than the statistical abstraction about the number of pits involved.
I found some difficulty in proceeding from that slightly anodyne economic concept—which would, I believe, suddenly join the Alliance with the Government as a broad proposition—to discover that it was much more sinister; that this whole thing was a device whereby Government were determined to engage—to quote the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) — in "an exercise in revenge", picking off one industry after another, not just the coal industry but a whole shopping list of industries, which would fall, domino-like, once there had been this great success. The hon. Gentleman used the word "salami," but I prefer "domino". He might care to bear that word in mind for future use, perhaps at the next protest meeting. That was to be matched by a determination to smash the trade unions, and the right hon. Member for Swansea, West spoke of a calculated determination to take on the railway unions as well as the miners.
Every Thursday morning I sit in Cabinet and am overcome with admiration for the skill, calm detachment and judgment of my colleagues. I had not for a moment realised that they were harbouring such massive ambitions, ones which defy what any British Government have sought hitherto.
Is it not as well that we recognise that this dispute is an attempt to bring about circumstances of low-cost coal production, using techniques not significantly different from those applied in the last decade or two, and in circumstances in which one has found oneself on a collision course with a number of people on the trade union side who, for one reason or another, are determined to stand and take issue on this matter? It is not a conflict between the union and the NCB and the Government. It is essentially a conflict between those in the union who wish to follow the leadership of Mr. Scargill and those who prefer not to adopt such policies.
It is well-known—not only in Oswestry but even among the landowners of the Lothians and the miners of Tranent — that if the union secured dominance in totality, right across the coalfield, so that there was 100 per cent. stoppage, the relationship with all the external unions—steel, transport and whatever—would be totally different. What we see today, however, is a dispute the character of which is substantially contained in the fact that many miners wish to continue, and are continuing, working.
What is the disaster of the police intervention? It is that they are taking up their duties to enable those who wish to work so to do. Is that use of the police reprehensible? Reference has been made to 2,500 arrests having been made, and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) said that the police were trying to weaken the strike, as if the police were direct agencies of Government and were, of their own volition, trying to engage in some resuscitation of the class war, which is near and dear to the hearts of those extremists who engage in this conflict. This small-scale debate is a demonstration of where the arguments lie in the balance of moderation and commitment. If this dispute could be determined by debate, we would be delighted to debate it again and again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), and the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) expressed their commitment to the Ulster Unionist party document, "The Way Forward", and I am certain


that the House will look forward to an early opportunity to debate the constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy), who reminded us of the need to have the subject of law and law implementation at the heart of Government legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) wished for a debate on milk quotas and their application as soon as possible. There will be a statutory instrument involving the scheme, which will come before the House. It will not necessarily come before next week, but it will come shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) commented on the need to have discussions on both terrorists and drugs within the next weeks and months, and we would all say "Aye" to that. My Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs), wishes to add to Parliament's responsibilities some committee or control over the operations of MI5. I do not think that I can offer any early hope of that.
Two speeches were devoted to international affairs. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) spoke against the impending visit of the South African Prime Minister. I am sure that he will be relieved to know that I do not agree with him, and I should like to put that on the record. However, it is highly desirable that the British Government should have the widest possible talks about the situation in Angola, Mozambique and Namibia with the affected powers in the area. I should have thought that that was a natural and defensible part of British foreign policy.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) is no longer with us, but he is one of the most regular contributors to these occasions, and one of the most predictable. It was again about Britain's role in Cyprus as a guarantor power that he spoke. This was a timely reminder that in one age we take on all kinds of international responsibilities, but the efflux of time makes them look absurd within a matter of a decade or two. Perhaps that is a reminder that we should travel with some humility when we take on international responsibilities and obligations. Working through the United Nations and in consort with our allies, we shall do our utmost to secure a lessening of tension in the island. This is even more necessary in view of the delicate situation that has arisen in the Famagusta area. As the hon. Member for Tooting said, he has made many speeches on this subject, and I hope that before he makes the next one, we shall have happier news to report.
The House has before it a motion for a very short holiday. I recommend it, and I hope that we shall come back invigorated to continue conflict as usual.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 25th May do adjourn until Monday 4th June.

County Courts Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is strictly a consolidation Bill, which gathers together the amendments made in this area of the law since the County Courts Act 1959 was passed. Even a consolidation Bill has its beauties, but I should not be popular if I shared them.
There are a few technical amendments which I shall move at the Committee stage. However, they will not alter the character of the Bill as being a strict consolidation measure. I should like to express, on behalf of the House, our gratitude to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills, which gave most careful attention to the Bill and inspired certain changes which removed some imperfections. I should like to express my appreciation to the parliamentary draftsman, whose labours on this consolidation began in 1978 and have now been carried through to a most valuable completion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Major.]

Committee tomorrow.

Seaside and Country Homes Scheme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: This is a timely and important debate on an issue that merits the attention and concern of both sides of the House. It is about the future of the GLC's seaside and country homes scheme for retired Londoners.
The scheme provides 3,200 homes outside London. It allows elderly tenants of the GLC and the London boroughs to retire to the seaside or countryside and thus releases accommodation in London for young couples in desperate need of homes of their own. The scheme has brought joy to thousands of elderly people. At the same time, it has given homes and hope to thousands of young married couples. Its success is reflected by a waiting list of 1,500 which, as I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) will have an opportunity to explain, grows tragically longer week by week because of the present uncertainties.
I must explain how I have come to be so closely involved with my right hon. Friend in the campaign to defend the scheme. Its elderly beneficiaries, many of whom, inevitably, are disabled, now live in 19 counties outside London, and my right hon. Friend and I were asked by them, as by the GLC, to present a petition asking the Government to allow the seaside and country homes scheme to continue. They approached us, they said, because of our special interest over the years in the problems of elderly and disabled people.
We presented their petition to the House on 16 March. It was signed by tenants of the GLC's scheme who now live in Avon, Berkshire, Cambridgeshire, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Essex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Shropshire, Somerset, Suffolk, Sussex and Wiltshire. The petition made plain the deeply felt anxieties of its signatories about the future of the seaside and country homes scheme and, in particular, their alarm that it might cease to exist if the GLC is abolished.
Anyone who doubts the very high regard in which the GLC is held by the people it exists to help, or who finds it difficult to understand why such a huge majority of Londoners want the GLC to stay, should speak to the tenants of the scheme we are debating here tonight. Well over 80 per cent. of them signed the petition. They did so not only out of concern for their own security but also to help other Londoners to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. Councillor Tony McBrearty and his colleagues on the GLC's housing committee, and their officials, can take legitimate pride in having demonstrated, beyond dispute, that London with the GLC is a capital city with a heart.
The Prime Minister wrote to me on 24 April, copying her letter to my right hon. Friend, to comment on the tenants' petition. She wrote:
I understand the genuine concern expressed by yourselves and those who signed the petition. We have always recognised that the scheme is highly prized by Londoners, and we have decided to ensure that it continues to be available for London's elderly people. We shall be discussing appropriate arrangements with those directly involved.
That was a partial retreat from the Government's original intention as set out in "Streamlining the Cities". The White

Paper proposed simply to give the 3,200 homes away to the district councils in whose areas they were built, stripping London's ratepayers of £70 million worth of assets. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister's letter begs more questions than it answers.
In particular, we need to know tonight whether the Government are prepared to give an assurance that 100 per cent. of vacancies will go to Londoners. The alternative is to admit that abolition of the GLC would cut the help now available to elderly Londoners.
How do the Government intend to honour the Prime Minister's promise to them of continued access to the scheme? Who, precisely, will be given the task? Would abolition of the GLC reduce the freedom of a tenant to move back to London or to another of the estates built under the scheme? How would any new arrangements be better or cheaper than those which already exist?
The fear persists, not least among people on the waiting list, that the scheme will not be allowed to continue at its present level. The tenants do not believe that it could be run by any other body either as efficiently or with as much care for individual needs as it is now by the GLC. They suspect that their mobility would be reduced, and are very strongly opposed to the GLC's abolition. Moreover, as was revealed by the results of a poll published by Audience Selection on 15 May, their opposition is now backed not only by the Government's critics but by a clear majority of their own supporters in London.
If the GLC's property is expropriated, will the Government insist on payment of financial contributions to the districts? If so, they will be asking London's ratepayers to pay for the use of their own expropriated assets. That would be the definition of a scandal. Left to themselves, there is scant prospect that the district councils would concede 100 per cent. nomination rights to Londoners. They have over 70,000 people on their own housing waiting lists, and this was pointedly emphasised by the Association of District Councils in reacting to the Government's original proposal. Let me quote just one sentence from its response:
It has to be recognised that receiving authorities are likely to prefer to see ex-GLC properties let from their own waiting lists.
Every suggested alternative to control by the GLC of the scheme it has evolved has been faulted by informed opinion. There are compelling cases against the scheme being run by the London Boroughs Association, the National Mobility Office, any kind of unelected quango or, even more disastrously, by the Department of the Environment. At present tenants can easily move between the estates built under the scheme or back to London. How could any successor body do the same in as accountable a way and as cost effectively? In other words, why imperil an excellent scheme when the Government have no idea with what it can be replaced? Is this streamlining?
Under the seaside and country homes scheme, one authority builds, lets and manages the properties. Infinite care is taken in selecting tenants, as I saw on a visit to County Hall last week. That is why the returns rate is so low. There is, by common consent, excellent management of a scheme which, in the view of everyone who knows of its achievement, ought to be expanded, and not curtailed.
The scheme is paid for by Londoners for Londoners, including ratepayers in the Prime Minister's constituency,


and those of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the hon. Gentleman who is to reply for the Government to this debate.
The hon. Gentleman may plead that he cannot say in detail tonight how the Prime Minister's pledge in her letter to me will be kept. That will not be good enough. Thousands of elderly people need reassurance now. I refer both to existing tenants of the scheme and to the 1,500 would-be tenants on the waiting list. The Government bear a direct responsibility for their anxieties.
Let the Minister speak, for example, to two elderly constituents of his, Mr. and Mrs. M. Evans, details of whose case I can provide, who are very anxious to move to Kent or east Sussex and would now have moved to Peacehaven if that proposed scheme had not been vetoed by the hon. Member's own Department.
The Prime Minister said in her letter to me that the Government would be discussing appropriate arrangements with the authorities directly concerned. Who has been and is to be consulted? I am told that neither the GLC nor the Association of London Authorities is being consulted. That is outrageous.
Are the districts being asked for their views? And why were they not consulted at the time of the original proposals? Again, will consultation by the Government be meaningful in the sense that they will do nothing further to curtail the scheme without the agreement of those who know most about it? Will the tenants be consulted?
To damage the seaside and country homes scheme would be an act of official vandalism. It is a scheme which, instead of being undermined, deserves to be strongly commended for its humane concern to help young and old alike. The Minister must surely accept that to expropriate £70 million worth of assets from London's ratepayers would itself be iniquitous, quite apart from the undermining of a scheme that has brought happiness to over 10,000 people and can do as much for many thousands more in the future.
The need for a clear and positive ministerial statement is urgent. Indeed, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that urgency has rarely been more urgent.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I am glad to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I congratulate him on making such a forthright speech. I should also like to congratulate the GLC. It is a very contentious organisation, but on this occasion it deserves great credit for having devised and carried out such an imaginative scheme.
Very few authorities consider providing for their citizens in areas outside their boundaries, but on this occasion the GLC has done so, and that is highly desirable. I pay tribute to the imagination and resourcefulness of the GLC. Many elderly people want to stay near their relatives, in familiar surroundings, when they retire. That is quite understandable. However, many do not want to and some prefer the countryside. After having suffered a great deal of poverty in some cases, they want to get away and fulfil an ambition to go to the countryside for reasons of health or comfort. But, for whatever reasons, the GLC scheme has given a choice—that is the great thing—to many old and disabled people, and the scheme is widely acclaimed by observers, and greatly appreciated by the participants.
I do not want to speak now on the controversy about the Government's efforts to torpedo the GLC, although it is an absurd and undemocratic move by the Government to try to abolish it. However, I wish to attack the Government's efforts to sink the excellent provision made by the GLC for old and disabled people. The scheme is giving thousands of people who need such encouragement enormous pleasure. Let us imagine the plight of an old couple who have lived their lives in London and who have reached the stage where they are thinking of how to spend their retirement. They hear of the GLC scheme. They may have come from outside London but they decide to retire to the country. They then apply for acceptance and find that the Government are pinching the scheme. They are giving away the houses concerned. It is impossible for Ministers to justify such a move.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has said, there are encouraging signs that the Government are having second thoughts. I do not think that the Prime Minister was quite as clear as she could have been. Perhaps she was deliberately ambiguous or ambivalent in her answer to our letter. Nevertheless, she showed some signs of a shift in the Government's stance, which I welcome. But it is not sufficient to give such an answer. We need a more explicit answer. The scheme should be allowed to remain and the Government should say clearly that Londoners who have bought and paid for these homes should keep them within their control. I hope that the scheme will be allowed to expand to meet the demand. But it is not enough to ensure that these old and disabled people have access to the scheme, because without the GLC it becomes difficult to administer.
The Government should provide clear and concise answers to the worries of those old and disabled people. I hope that the Government will reach their conclusion without undue delay. If the Minister can give a categorical answer this evening, it will be greatly appreciated. I hope that he will see his way clear to providing an answer as soon as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The House recognises the commitment to the interests of the elderly and disabled of the right hon. Members for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I confess to an element of surprise that a matter which is of primary concern to elderly people in London should have been raised by right hon. Members representing Manchester and Stoke constituencies.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe mentioned two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Evans. I am sure that he will tell them that I hold two advice sessions each week in my constituency office at 91 Shakespeare road. I should be delighted to see either of them at their earliest convenience.
I emphasise a point made by both right hon. Gentlemen — the importance of the seaside and country homes scheme. They rightly underlined the opportunities which the scheme provides for London's elderly people to enjoy their retirement in homes outside the capital.
It might be helpful if I sketch briefly a little of the background to our recent consideration of the scheme's future, and the GLC's housing role generally.
For virtually three quarters of a century the GLC's predecessor, the London County Council, was the


dominant force in London's public-sector housing. Faced with the appalling problems of that time, and far more powerful than virtually all the multitude of small-scale lower-tier authorities in the capital, the LCC had a natural task in clearing many of London's nineteenth century slums, in replacing homes destroyed by bombing, and in building outside the capital to help relieve London's desperate housing shortage.
This last element was seen as an important contribution to the dispersal of population from the overcrowded capital to the more spacious surroundings in much of the southern half of the country.
Initially, efforts were concentrated on building in what is now outer London — then, of course, outside "London's" boundaries. Subsequently, and as that area, too, became built up, more effort was devoted to promoting new housing and often jobs in locations well away from the capital—the town development schemes, expanded towns and overspill estates which enabled many Londoners to make a fresh start in a fresh environment. Often it was possible to provide individual houses which the high land prices in London would have made impossible.
The Greater London Council as successor authority to the LCC carried on with many of these developments and undertook new ones. There were obviously parallels with the development of the new towns, and great efforts were made by all concerned to make the dispersal of population a success.
Thus developed the GLC's seaside and country homes programme, providing elderly people's accommodation outside London for retired council tenants from the capital. The programme began in 1964, and, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, nearly 3,500 dwellings have been built. They are widely scattered, usually in small groups, over more than 70 locations in the area of about 40 district councils. No one could deny their popularity. As an hon. Member representing a London constituency, I am only too well aware that the vacancies are like gold dust.
The GLC's construction record has been by no means blameless—a number of half-built estates were at one time apparently left unfinished. But, once built, the dwellings have certainly proved a success. Tenants have been able to pass their retirements in enjoyable surroundings and with the company of other Londoners, while often also near to their relatives.
The housing authorities in London, on the other hand, have gained by the extra lettings that they have been able to make in their own stock, filling the vacancies created by those leaving the capital.
Yet while the need for and popularity of the seaside and country homes scheme remains strong to this day, in other respects the tide was turning against the GLC's main housing activities. It became accepted that in many places the policy of population dispersal had gone far enough, and the winding-up of local authority town development and overspill schemes paralleled reductions in activity among the new towns.
At the same time, increasing emphasis was being placed on the problems of the inner cities and on measures to meet them. Finally, in 1980 and 1981, the GLC

voluntarily transferred to the district councils ownership of the 25,000 dwellings that it still owned outside London, apart from the seaside and country homes.
Other processes were at work within the capital. The London Government Act 1963 brought into being a much stronger and multi-purpose lower tier of local government, the London boroughs, at the same time as it established the GLC. The Herbert commission had seen housing as essentially a local service, a view with which Parliament agreed in establishing the borough councils as the local housing authorities for their areas. The Act specifically envisaged the transfer of the GLC's housing stock to the boroughs in due course and the possible termination of many of that council's housing powers.
The 1970s saw the London boroughs becoming increasingly self-reliant in the exercise of their housing powers, with the spread of the concept of integrated housing departments, and recognition of the importance of close working relationships between housing officers and those dealing with the health and social services powers that the boroughs had acquired also.
Housing is an essentially local service, in which experience has shown that close contact between tenants and management is vital if estates are to be handled well and their potential realised to the full.
The desirability of, let alone need for, any remaining role for the GLC in this field became more and more questionable, and ownership of some dwellings was transferred to London boroughs between 1971 and 1973. Eventually, under a series of orders made between 1980 and 1982, the GLC divested itself of almost all its remaining housing, in a series of operations which paralleled on a larger scale those taking place outside London.
The culmination of this process was the Government's recognition in 1981 that as primary housing authorities the London boroughs should share between them as large a proportion as possible of the finite volume of housing investment programme resources that could be made available to London. Since that decision, the GLC's housing allocation has been related almost exclusively to its responsibilities under the transfer orders, and the council has no longer been allowed to pre-empt resources for use on work which the boroughs are equally empowered and better placed to undertake.
Against the background of the diminution in the GLC's responsibilities which had already taken place, we proposed in October that, on abolition of the GLC, ownership of its council's seaside and country homes should pass to the district councils in whose areas they lay. We recorded also that London boroughs wishing to enable their retired tenants to move to these dwellings in future would be able to negotiate with the districts for nomination rights, in return for financial contributions. Nomination rights so obtained might be pooled if the boroughs so wished.
We suggested the creation of a voluntary joint committee to co-ordinate those arrangements. The rights would, however, have been ultimately in the hands of the boroughs themselves as the capital's housing authorities—an important contrast to the present position where boroughs are able to make nominations only by courtesy of the GLC.
It is nonsense to suppose, as some have done, that these proposals were intended to reduce opportunities for movement out of London. This Government have


probably done more than any other to encourage and facilitate mobility among local authority tenants throughout the country.
I shall not dwell in detail on the national mobility scheme which was set up in 1981 and which has brought mobility within the reach of many people. After three years, the number of moves under the scheme between councils and different counties is now well over 12,000. We have taken a complementary step in setting up the tenants' exchange scheme. There are currently about 36,000 registrations within the scheme. The right to exchange is embodied in the Housing and Building Control Bill. which is before the House.
In the context of the seaside and country homes scheme I have been seriously concerned about the misrepresentations to which our proposals have been subjected—in particular, the chairman of the GLC's housing committee wrote to all the tenants of the seaside and country homes presenting our proposals in a manner that I can only describe as one-sided, and that with some moderation on my part. In a letter of seven paragraphs, the chairman severely criticised what he saw as the consequences of our proposals but at no point made any mention of nomination rights being negotiated by the boroughs. I believe, from the correspondence I have seen since then, that that letter caused a good deal of unnecessary anxiety among elderly tenants. It alleged that continuing links with London would end, that opportunities for moves back to London or elsewhere would decline, and that the special character of the estates and their community spirit would be lost.
Yet borough nomination rights would, of course, meet virtually all these concerns, and it is hardly surprising if the absence of any mention of them caused the widespread fears among the elderly which we see reflected in the petition presented to the House by the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and for Stoke-on-Trent, South. As in a number of other areas, the GLC's letter and the consequent petition equate the survival of a particular service with the survival of the council but fail to substantiate why that should be so. I am not the only Member of this place to feel great concern that our proposals were so misrepresented in the GLC's letter to elderly tenants, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in deploring its content. None the less, the fears have been raised and the Government have to respond to the representations that we have received to try to allay these concerns.
In consequence, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe has said and as the House will be aware, my right hon. Friend announced on 11 April on Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill that measures would be taken to ensure that the seaside and country homes would continue to be available to London's council tenants. Those measures will have statutory force.
I cannot guarantee that every last dwelling will be preserved for London's use for ever and a day. To hear some of the references made by the GLC and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe to the homes having been built "with London money", one might forget that the Exchequer contributed up to three quarters of the costs. But we certainly intend that the London boroughs collectively should have access to the lion's share of the lettings and that fair financial arrangements should be made reflecting the benefits obtained. We expect that there should therefore be no question of major changes in the

character of the estates, the prospect of which has worried so many of the existing tenants. They have also been alarmed by suggestions that standards of management would decline under the districts. Yet 80 per cent. are managed locally already under agency arrangements. Further, once ownership has been transferred, the tenants will be able to vote for or against the councillors who really control the local service. Finally, we would aim to preserve the facility for tenants both to move between estates and to return to London if they so choose under the powers of the statutory London mobility scheme, which has been announced by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister has questioned the genuineness of the petitioners' concern. The Prime Minister, in her letter to me of 24 April, said that she accepted that there was genuine concern. Why should the Minister take a different view while speaking for the Government? Is he telling me that there will be every possibility that tenants under the scheme can move back to London? He appeared to be saying that there would be no obstacle if elderly people want to return to London. Is that his position? He will appreciate as well that I have asked many more questions than he has so far answered. Will he try his best to answer them before he concludes?

Sir George Young: As I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise, the decision in principle to ensure that lettings will remain available to Londoners was announced slightly over a month ago. I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman or the House at this stage exactly what the detailed proposals are. We shall have to consult a number of those who are involved. Indeed, we have already done so. I have to tell him that I cannot answer all the specific points that he has raised. I can confirm that it will be a statutory scheme. I repeat that it will be possible under the statutory scheme for those who move out of London and wish to return to do so.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister makes little about the investment that Londoners have made in the provision of the homes and the capital asset that is being transferred to districts, which made no contribution to their provision. There is something inherently wrong in that. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Secondly, can the Minister say whether the districts will have the ability to dispose of the seaside homes by selling them off to the tenants who are in them, or by disposal in any other way?

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the disposal of "London's assets". There is a precedent, to which I have referred in my opening remarks, which lies in the non-seaside country homes which were built by the LCC outside London. Those were transferred voluntarily in the 1970s to the district councils. There was no great outcry by London that it had been deprived of some assets. That was seen as a sensible arrangement. The right to buy is in theory associated with many of the dwellings and it has been exercised. If the tenants fulfil the conditions under the 1980 and 1984 Acts, they will have the right buy either from the GLC or from the district council. To that extent it is irrelevant who the owner is. The right to buy is independent of that consideration.
I note that the time available for the debate is drawing to a close. I recognise the concern that has been expressed, but to some extent it has been stirred up unnecessarily by


a somewhat one-sided letter which has been circulated to all the tenants of seaside and country homes. I can assure all those who participated in the debate that the Government will be issuing detailed proposals in due

course. It is our belief that we can tackle the problem in a way that preserves the interests of those who are involved.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve o'clock.